From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, Vaibhav Bedia <vaibhav.bedia@ti.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Update SMP_ON_UP code to detect A9MPCore with 1 CPU devices Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:43:53 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5241CF59.3000006@ti.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20130924170849.GC32220@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> On Tuesday 24 September 2013 01:08 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Santosh, > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 02:31:04PM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Tuesday 13 August 2013 07:19 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 07:34:13PM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>> On Friday 02 August 2013 11:48 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>> I think this an A9-specific register, which reads as 0 on UP A9 and reads as >>>>> some form of PERIPH_BASE for SMP parts. The issue I have is when PERIPH_BASE >>>>> is zero. >>>>> >>>> What do we do here ? Should we document this in the code and proceed ? >>>> Mostly there is no platform with PERIPH_BASE = 0, so its should be fine but >>>> I am open for any other alternative. >>> >>> The only other alternative I can think of is forcing people to have >>> CONFIG_SMP=n, but that blows away single zImage for your platform. >>> >> Yep which surely we don't want considering after so much effort we >> have it working first place. How about going ahead with assumption >> that PERIPH_BASE = 0 case doesn't work. > > It's been over a month and I can't think of anything better than this > without jeopardising the single zImage effort. However, it also doesn't seem > fair if we rule out the possibility of single zImage for future SoCs which > use 0x0 as their PERIPH_BASE (I don't know of any at the moment). > > So how about we go ahead with this, but add a big fat comment to the code in > head.S saying that, if a future SoC *does* use 0x0 as the PERIPH_BASE, then > the check will need to be #ifdef'd or equivalent for the Aegis platform? > I agree. Updated patch end of the email. If you are fine with this version, will stick it into RMK's patch system. Regards, Santosh >From 05b1b43324f3e8d10a38f78dbcbf7632d4c3530c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vaibhav Bedia <vaibhav.bedia@ti.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:01:53 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Update SMP_ON_UP code to detect A9MPCore with 1 CPU devices The generic code is well equipped to differentiate between SMP and UP configurations.However, there are some devices which use Cortex-A9 MP core IP with 1 CPU as configuration. To let these SOCs to co-exist in a CONFIG_SMP=y build by leveraging the SMP_ON_UP support, we need to additionally check the number the cores in Cortex-A9 MPCore configuration. Without such a check in place, the startup code tries to execute ALT_SMP() set of instructions which lead to CPU faults. The issue was spotted on TI's Aegis device and this patch makes now the device work with omap2plus_defconfig which enables SMP by default. The change is kept limited to only Cortex-A9 MPCore detection code. Note that if any future SoC *does* use 0x0 as the PERIPH_BASE, then the SCU address check code needs to be #ifdef'd for for the Aegis platform. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Acked-by: Sricharan R <r.sricharan@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Bedia <vaibhav.bedia@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/head.S | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S index 2c7cc1e..476de57 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S @@ -487,7 +487,26 @@ __fixup_smp: mrc p15, 0, r0, c0, c0, 5 @ read MPIDR and r0, r0, #0xc0000000 @ multiprocessing extensions and teq r0, #0x80000000 @ not part of a uniprocessor system? - moveq pc, lr @ yes, assume SMP + bne __fixup_smp_on_up @ no, assume UP + + @ Core indicates it is SMP. Check for Aegis SOC where a single + @ Cortex-A9 CPU is present but SMP operations fault. + mov r4, #0x41000000 + orr r4, r4, #0x0000c000 + orr r4, r4, #0x00000090 + teq r3, r4 @ Check for ARM Cortex-A9 + movne pc, lr @ Not ARM Cortex-A9, + + @ If a future SoC *does* use 0x0 as the PERIPH_BASE, then the + @ below address check will need to be #ifdef'd or equivalent + @ for the Aegis platform. + mrc p15, 4, r0, c15, c0 @ get SCU base address + teq r0, #0x0 @ '0' on actual UP A9 hardware + beq __fixup_smp_on_up @ So its an A9 UP + ldr r0, [r0, #4] @ read SCU Config + and r0, r0, #0x3 @ number of CPUs + teq r0, #0x0 @ is 1? + movne pc, lr __fixup_smp_on_up: adr r0, 1f -- 1.7.9.5
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Update SMP_ON_UP code to detect A9MPCore with 1 CPU devices Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:43:53 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5241CF59.3000006@ti.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20130924170849.GC32220@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> On Tuesday 24 September 2013 01:08 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Santosh, > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 02:31:04PM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Tuesday 13 August 2013 07:19 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 07:34:13PM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>> On Friday 02 August 2013 11:48 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>> I think this an A9-specific register, which reads as 0 on UP A9 and reads as >>>>> some form of PERIPH_BASE for SMP parts. The issue I have is when PERIPH_BASE >>>>> is zero. >>>>> >>>> What do we do here ? Should we document this in the code and proceed ? >>>> Mostly there is no platform with PERIPH_BASE = 0, so its should be fine but >>>> I am open for any other alternative. >>> >>> The only other alternative I can think of is forcing people to have >>> CONFIG_SMP=n, but that blows away single zImage for your platform. >>> >> Yep which surely we don't want considering after so much effort we >> have it working first place. How about going ahead with assumption >> that PERIPH_BASE = 0 case doesn't work. > > It's been over a month and I can't think of anything better than this > without jeopardising the single zImage effort. However, it also doesn't seem > fair if we rule out the possibility of single zImage for future SoCs which > use 0x0 as their PERIPH_BASE (I don't know of any at the moment). > > So how about we go ahead with this, but add a big fat comment to the code in > head.S saying that, if a future SoC *does* use 0x0 as the PERIPH_BASE, then > the check will need to be #ifdef'd or equivalent for the Aegis platform? > I agree. Updated patch end of the email. If you are fine with this version, will stick it into RMK's patch system. Regards, Santosh >From 05b1b43324f3e8d10a38f78dbcbf7632d4c3530c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vaibhav Bedia <vaibhav.bedia@ti.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:01:53 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Update SMP_ON_UP code to detect A9MPCore with 1 CPU devices The generic code is well equipped to differentiate between SMP and UP configurations.However, there are some devices which use Cortex-A9 MP core IP with 1 CPU as configuration. To let these SOCs to co-exist in a CONFIG_SMP=y build by leveraging the SMP_ON_UP support, we need to additionally check the number the cores in Cortex-A9 MPCore configuration. Without such a check in place, the startup code tries to execute ALT_SMP() set of instructions which lead to CPU faults. The issue was spotted on TI's Aegis device and this patch makes now the device work with omap2plus_defconfig which enables SMP by default. The change is kept limited to only Cortex-A9 MPCore detection code. Note that if any future SoC *does* use 0x0 as the PERIPH_BASE, then the SCU address check code needs to be #ifdef'd for for the Aegis platform. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Acked-by: Sricharan R <r.sricharan@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Bedia <vaibhav.bedia@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/head.S | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S index 2c7cc1e..476de57 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S @@ -487,7 +487,26 @@ __fixup_smp: mrc p15, 0, r0, c0, c0, 5 @ read MPIDR and r0, r0, #0xc0000000 @ multiprocessing extensions and teq r0, #0x80000000 @ not part of a uniprocessor system? - moveq pc, lr @ yes, assume SMP + bne __fixup_smp_on_up @ no, assume UP + + @ Core indicates it is SMP. Check for Aegis SOC where a single + @ Cortex-A9 CPU is present but SMP operations fault. + mov r4, #0x41000000 + orr r4, r4, #0x0000c000 + orr r4, r4, #0x00000090 + teq r3, r4 @ Check for ARM Cortex-A9 + movne pc, lr @ Not ARM Cortex-A9, + + @ If a future SoC *does* use 0x0 as the PERIPH_BASE, then the + @ below address check will need to be #ifdef'd or equivalent + @ for the Aegis platform. + mrc p15, 4, r0, c15, c0 @ get SCU base address + teq r0, #0x0 @ '0' on actual UP A9 hardware + beq __fixup_smp_on_up @ So its an A9 UP + ldr r0, [r0, #4] @ read SCU Config + and r0, r0, #0x3 @ number of CPUs + teq r0, #0x0 @ is 1? + movne pc, lr __fixup_smp_on_up: adr r0, 1f -- 1.7.9.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-24 17:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-08-01 18:17 [PATCH] ARM: Update SMP_ON_UP code to detect A9MPCore with 1 CPU devices Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-01 18:17 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-02 9:53 ` Will Deacon 2013-08-02 9:53 ` Will Deacon 2013-08-02 12:32 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-02 12:32 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-02 14:18 ` Dave Martin 2013-08-02 14:18 ` Dave Martin 2013-08-02 15:18 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-02 15:18 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-02 14:45 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha 2013-08-02 14:45 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha 2013-08-02 15:22 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-02 15:22 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-02 15:45 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha 2013-08-02 15:45 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha 2013-08-02 15:48 ` Will Deacon 2013-08-02 15:48 ` Will Deacon 2013-08-12 18:34 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-12 18:34 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-13 11:19 ` Will Deacon 2013-08-13 11:19 ` Will Deacon 2013-08-13 13:31 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-13 13:31 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-23 17:08 ` Sekhar Nori 2013-08-23 17:08 ` Sekhar Nori 2013-08-23 17:17 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-23 17:17 ` Santosh Shilimkar 2013-08-23 17:41 ` Sekhar Nori 2013-08-23 17:41 ` Sekhar Nori 2013-09-24 17:08 ` Will Deacon 2013-09-24 17:08 ` Will Deacon 2013-09-24 17:43 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message] 2013-09-24 17:43 ` Santosh Shilimkar
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=5241CF59.3000006@ti.com \ --to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \ --cc=Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \ --cc=vaibhav.bedia@ti.com \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.