Re: [PATCH v9 01/12] ARM: EXYNOS: refactor firmware specific routines

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> wrote:
> To remove dependency on soc_is_exynosMMMM macros and remove multiple
> checks for such macros, let's refactor code in firmware.c file.
> SoC specific firmware_ops are separated and registered during
> exynos_firmware_init based on matching machine compatible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> index e81a78b..b04c47a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,25 @@ static void exynos_save_cp15(void)
>              : : "cc");
>  }
>
> +static int exynos3250_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
> +{
> +       switch (mode) {
> +       case FW_DO_IDLE_AFTR:
> +               writel_relaxed(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
> +                              sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
> +               writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
> +               flush_cache_all();
> +               exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
> +                               SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> +               exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SHUTDOWN, OP_TYPE_CLUSTER,
> +                               SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> +               break;
> +       case FW_DO_IDLE_SLEEP:
> +               exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SLEEP, 0, 0, 0);
> +       }
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
>  {
>         switch (mode) {
> @@ -44,14 +63,7 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
>                 writel_relaxed(__pa_symbol(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
>                                sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
>                 writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
> -               if (soc_is_exynos3250()) {
> -                       flush_cache_all();
> -                       exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
> -                                  SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> -                       exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SHUTDOWN, OP_TYPE_CLUSTER,
> -                                  SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> -               } else
> -                       exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU0AFTR, 0, 0, 0);
> +               exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU0AFTR, 0, 0, 0);
>                 break;
>         case FW_DO_IDLE_SLEEP:
>                 exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SLEEP, 0, 0, 0);
> @@ -59,28 +71,25 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu)
> +static int exynos4212_cpu_boot(int cpu)
>  {
>         /*
> -        * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot
> -        * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode.
> -        */
> -       if (soc_is_exynos3250())
> -               return 0;
> -
> -       /*
>          * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id.
>          * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter
>          * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id.
>          */
> -       if (soc_is_exynos4212())
> -               cpu = 0;
> +       cpu = 0;

The comment above is clear enough so I think there is no need for this
assignment. Just use 0 as argument in exynos_smc().

Rest looks good so with this change:
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof