From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Park, Aiden Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 18:34:23 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 4/8] x86: slimbootloader: Support 64-bit operation In-Reply-To: References: <20200422004507.2025-1-aiden.park@intel.com> <20200422004507.2025-5-aiden.park@intel.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Simon, > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Glass > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:04 AM > To: Park, Aiden > Cc: Bin Meng ; U-Boot Mailing List boot at lists.denx.de> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86: slimbootloader: Support 64-bit operation > > Hi Aiden, > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 00:01, Park, Aiden wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Simon Glass > > > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:16 PM > > > To: Park, Aiden > > > Cc: Bin Meng ; U-Boot Mailing List > > boot at lists.denx.de> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86: slimbootloader: Support 64-bit > > > operation > > > > > > Hi Aiden, > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 18:45, wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Aiden Park > > > > > > > > This supports 64-bit U-Boot as a Slim Bootloader payload. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Aiden Park > > > > --- > > > > arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/Makefile | 9 +++++++-- > > > > arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/entry64.S | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > > > arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/slimbootloader.c | 17 > > > > +++++++++++++++-- > > > > 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) create mode > > > > 100644 arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/entry64.S > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/Makefile > > > > b/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/Makefile > > > > index aac9fa3db8..79fa699501 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/Makefile > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/Makefile > > > > @@ -1,5 +1,10 @@ > > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ # -# Copyright (C) 2019 > > > > Intel Corporation > > > > +# Copyright (C) 2019-2020 Intel Corporation > > > > > > > > -obj-y += car.o slimbootloader.o sdram.o serial.o > > > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_X86_64),y) > > > > +obj-y += entry64.o > > > > +else > > > > +obj-y += car.o > > > > +endif > > > > +obj-y += slimbootloader.o sdram.o serial.o > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/entry64.S > > > > b/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/entry64.S > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 0000000000..5e101e18a9 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/entry64.S > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */ > > > > +/* > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Intel Corporation */ > > > > + > > > > +#include > > > > + > > > > +.section .text > > > > + > > > > +.globl init_64bit_entry > > > > +init_64bit_entry: > > > > + /* Save hob pointer parameter */ > > > > + mov %rcx, %r10 > > > > + jmp init_64bit_entry_ret > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/slimbootloader.c > > > > b/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/slimbootloader.c > > > > index 21dcfb2142..7857e4cd8b 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/slimbootloader.c > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/slimbootloader/slimbootloader.c > > > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > > /* > > > > - * Copyright (C) 2019 Intel Corporation > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2019-2020 Intel Corporation > > > > */ > > > > > > > > #include > > > > @@ -43,11 +43,23 @@ static void tsc_init(void) > > > > > > > > int arch_cpu_init(void) > > > > { > > > > + int ret = 0; > > > > + > > > > tsc_init(); > > > > > > > > - return x86_cpu_init_f(); > > > > +#if !CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(X86_64) > > > > > > Can you use if() instead of #if ? > > I will do it. > > > > > > > > > + ret = x86_cpu_init_f(); > > > > +#endif > > > > + return ret; > > > > } > > > > > > > > +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(X86_64) > > > > > > It should be safe to define both of these functions so I don't think > > > you need the #ifdef > > These are defined in arch/x86/cpu/x86_64/cpu.c already. > > Is it okay to make them weak reference or can I keep this as it is? > > Oh I see. I am not a fan of weak functions so perhaps we should keep them as is. I agree with you about the weak functions. Let me keep this as is. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > +int set_hob_list(void *hob_list) > > > > +{ > > > > + gd->arch.hob_list = hob_list; > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > +#else > > > > int checkcpu(void) > > > > { > > > > return 0; > > > > @@ -57,3 +69,4 @@ int print_cpuinfo(void) { > > > > return default_print_cpuinfo(); } > > > > +#endif > > > > -- > > > > 2.20.1 > > > > > Regards, > Simon Best Regards, Aiden