From: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
mporter@linaro.org, bcm@fixthebug.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de
Cc: bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: add SMP support for Broadcom mobile SoCs
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 17:02:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53680A5B.4060208@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <533EF21C.6000909@codeaurora.org>
On 04/04/2014 12:55 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 04/03/14 19:18, Alex Elder wrote:
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Secondary startup method setup routine to extract the location of
>> + * the secondary boot register from a "cpu" or "cpus" device tree
>> + * node. Only the first seen secondary boot register value is used;
>> + * any others are ignored. The secondary boot register value must be
>> + * non-zero.
>> + *
>> + * Returns 0 if successful or an error code otherwise.
>> + */
>> +static int __init of_enable_method_setup(struct device_node *node)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + /* Ignore all but the first one specified */
>> + if (secondary_boot)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(node, OF_SECONDARY_BOOT, &secondary_boot);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%s: missing/invalid " OF_SECONDARY_BOOT " property\n",
>> + node->name);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
> I don't understand why we need this. Why can't we get the secondary boot
> address from the /cpus node in the smp_prepare_cpus op. It isn't that
> hard to get access to the cpus node there via of_find_node_by_path().
> Then we don't need patch 1 at all. If it turns out to be common stuff,
> we can always have the common function live in arm common code or maybe
> even be a devicetree API.
I already responded to this, but never got any response. I
was preparing to re-send this series and wanted to try to
pull the added feature (patch 1) out and not be dependent on
it. But I think it's a bit ugly so I'm hoping to get a
blessing to proceed with what I originally proposed. For
reference, here's the thread:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/3/421
What I'm trying to do is get the value of a "secondary-boot-reg"
property from a node known to have an "enable-method" property
that matches the method name supplied in CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE().
Using the callback function as I originally proposed, this is
very easy. When arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() parses the "cpus" portion
of the device tree it calls set_smp_ops_by_method() for a
matching "cpu" or "cpus" node, and that function supplies
the node to the callback function. The callback can extract
additional property values if needed.
If I hold off until smp_prepare_cpus() is called, I have to
re-parse the device tree to find the "cpus" node (this is
in itself trivial). I then need to re-parse that node to
verify the matching "enable-method" property is found before
looking for the parameter information I need for that enable
method. I would really prefer not to re-do this parsing
step. It's imprecise and a little inefficient, and it
duplicates (but not exactly) logic that's already performed
by arm_dt_init_cpu_maps().
One more point of clarification. This "secondary-boot-reg"
value is *not* the secondary boot address--that is, it's
not the address secondary cores jump to when they are
activated. Instead, this is the address of a register
that's used to request the ROM code release a core from
its ROM-implemented holding pen. For this machine,
control jumps at that point to secondary_startup(),
defined in arch/arm/kernel/head.S.
So...
Stephen, I'd like to hear from you whether my explanation
is adequate, and whether you think my addition and use of
CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE_SETUP() is reasonable. (If you have
a suggestion for a better name, I'm open.)
If you still don't like it, I'll follow up with a
new version of the patches, this time parsing the
device tree in the smp_prepare_cpus() method as
you suggested. I don't want this to hold up getting
this SMP support into the kernel.
Thanks.
-Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-05 22:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-04 2:18 [PATCH 0/5] ARM: SMP: support Broadcom mobile SoCs Alex Elder
2014-04-04 2:18 ` [PATCH 1/5] ARM: introduce CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE_SETUP() Alex Elder
2014-04-04 2:18 ` [PATCH 2/5] ARM: add SMP support for Broadcom mobile SoCs Alex Elder
2014-04-04 2:26 ` Alex Elder
2014-04-04 15:30 ` Tim Kryger
2014-04-04 18:56 ` Alex Elder
2014-04-15 12:30 ` Alex Elder
2014-04-04 17:55 ` Stephen Boyd
2014-04-04 19:30 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-05 22:02 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2014-05-06 1:43 ` Stephen Boyd
2014-05-06 4:05 ` Alex Elder
2014-04-04 2:18 ` [PATCH 3/5] ARM: configs: enable SMP in bcm_defconfig Alex Elder
2014-04-04 10:21 ` Alex Elder
2014-04-04 2:18 ` [PATCH 4/5] ARM: dts: enable SMP support for bcm28155 Alex Elder
2014-04-04 2:18 ` [PATCH 5/5] ARM: dts: enable SMP support for bcm21664 Alex Elder
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=53680A5B.4060208@linaro.org \
--to=elder@linaro.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=bcm@fixthebug.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mporter@linaro.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).