From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:41:40 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [Patch v2 3/5] armv8/fsl-lsch3: Release secondary
 cores from boot hold off with Boot Page
In-Reply-To: <53F63B55.3040900@freescale.com>
References: <1408480082-4617-1-git-send-email-yorksun@freescale.com>
	<1408480082-4617-3-git-send-email-yorksun@freescale.com>
	<20140821134724.GM21734@leverpostej>
	<53F63B55.3040900@freescale.com>
Message-ID: <20140822114140.GV21734@leverpostej>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi York,

> >> -       /*
> >> -        * All processors will enter EL2 and optionally EL1.
> >> +slave_cpu:
> >> +       wfe
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_SMP_RELEASE_ALL
> >> +       /* All cores are released from the address in the 1st spin table
> >> +        * element
> >>          */
> >> -       bl      armv8_switch_to_el2
> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARMV8_SWITCH_TO_EL1
> >> -       bl      armv8_switch_to_el1
> >> +       ldr     x1, =__spin_table
> >> +       ldr     x0, [x1]
> >> +#else
> >> +       ldr     x0, [x11]
> >> +#endif
> >> +       cbz     x0, slave_cpu
> >
> > Similarly is there any reason to have the option of a single release
> > addr if we can support unique addresses?
> 
> I think it was used by Linux for some ARM parts. I personally not a fun of using
> single release.

That makes two of us. The single release address on those ARM dts is a
legacy mistake that we can't fix up without breaking some models. We
don't need to propagate that mistake to new platforms.

> But if it makes everyone happy, I can keep it.

I'd be happier with CONFIG_FSL_SMP_RELEASE_ALL dropped entirely. Ideally
U-Boot would always provide a unique cpu-release-address for each CPU. 

Thanks,
Mark.