From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753536AbdF2PHo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:07:44 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:34027 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753466AbdF2PHg (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:07:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1fLABzSc7kej6uw751uoZma1Qvpm7c3mkLB45rcBNQTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170606005426.26446-1-afaerber@suse.de> <20170606005426.26446-21-afaerber@suse.de>
 <CAK8P3a1fLABzSc7kej6uw751uoZma1Qvpm7c3mkLB45rcBNQTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:07:35 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ozHtaJ3ySIpjbU8rQkkyvk7d02A
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3Pg2rm8nSPUm_E61F7+zSr3gWV6sNqhC0Et3Zh2xPtmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 20/28] ARM: owl: Implement CPU enable-method for S500
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>
Cc: Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        mp-cs@actions-semi.com, Thomas Liau <thomas.liau@actions-semi.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?5byg5Lic6aOO?= <zhangdf@actions-semi.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?5YiY54Kc?= <liuwei@actions-semi.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?5byg5aSp55uK?= <tyzhang@actions-semi.com>,
        96boards@ucrobotics.com, support@lemaker.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>> +static int s500_smp_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
>> +{
>> +       unsigned long timeout;
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       ret = s500_wakeup_secondary(cpu);
>> +       if (ret)
>> +               return ret;
>> +
>> +       udelay(10);
>> +
>> +       spin_lock(&boot_lock);
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * The secondary processor is waiting to be released from
>> +        * the holding pen - release it, then wait for it to flag
>> +        * that it has been released by resetting pen_release.
>> +        */
>> +       write_pen_release(cpu_logical_map(cpu));
>> +       smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
>> +
>> +       timeout = jiffies + (1 * HZ);
>> +       while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
>> +               if (pen_release == -1)
>> +                       break;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       writel(0, timer_base_addr + OWL_CPU1_ADDR + (cpu - 1) * 4);
>> +       writel(0, timer_base_addr + OWL_CPU1_FLAG + (cpu - 1) * 4);
>> +
>> +       spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
>> +
>> +       return pen_release != -1 ? -ENOSYS : 0;
>> +}
>
> This looks more complicated than necessary. Why do you need the holding
> pen when you have a register to start up the CPU?
>

It seems you missed my question here. Can you please follow up, and
if possible send a patch to remove the pen_release logic that appears
to be unnecessary here?

        Arnd