[PATCH 1/3] ARM: zynq: read scu base from SoC
Steffen Trumtrar
s.trumtrar at pengutronix.de
Tue Mar 26 07:08:19 EDT 2013
Hi Michal,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:59:14PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
>
> 2013/3/25 Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar at pengutronix.de>:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:01:59PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> 2013/3/23 Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar at pengutronix.de>:
> >> > Instead of hardcoding the base address of the SCU get it from the device.
> >> > While at it, add the SCU to the DT.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar at pengutronix.de>
> >> > Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com>
> >> > Cc: Josh Cartwright <josh.cartwright at ni.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 5 +++++
> >> > arch/arm/mach-zynq/common.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >> > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> >> > index 88564fa..c103082 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> >> > @@ -199,6 +199,11 @@
> >> > };
> >> > };
> >> >
> >> > + scu: scu at f8f000000 {
> >> > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-scu";
> >> > + reg = <0xf8f00000 0x58>;
> >> > + };
> >> > +
> >> > timer: timer at f8f00600 {
> >> > compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-twd-timer";
> >> > reg = <0xf8f00600 0x20>;
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/common.c
> >> > index 920e20a..014131c 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/common.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/common.c
> >> > @@ -32,11 +32,14 @@
> >> > #include <asm/mach-types.h>
> >> > #include <asm/page.h>
> >> > #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> >> > +#include <asm/smp_scu.h>
> >> > #include <asm/smp_twd.h>
> >> > #include <asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h>
> >> >
> >> > #include "common.h"
> >> >
> >> > +void __iomem *scu_base;
> >>
> >> This must be defined in header - will produce sparse warning.
> >>
> >
> > Okay. No problem. I can change that.
> >
> >> > +
> >> > static struct of_device_id zynq_of_bus_ids[] __initdata = {
> >> > { .compatible = "simple-bus", },
> >> > {}
> >> > @@ -56,17 +59,6 @@ static void __init xilinx_init_machine(void)
> >> > of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > -#define SCU_PERIPH_PHYS 0xF8F00000
> >> > -#define SCU_PERIPH_SIZE SZ_8K
> >> > -#define SCU_PERIPH_VIRT (VMALLOC_END - SCU_PERIPH_SIZE)
> >> > -
> >> > -static struct map_desc scu_desc __initdata = {
> >> > - .virtual = SCU_PERIPH_VIRT,
> >> > - .pfn = __phys_to_pfn(SCU_PERIPH_PHYS),
> >> > - .length = SCU_PERIPH_SIZE,
> >> > - .type = MT_DEVICE,
> >> > -};
> >> > -
> >> > static void __init xilinx_zynq_timer_init(void)
> >> > {
> >> > struct device_node *np;
> >> > @@ -82,13 +74,31 @@ static void __init xilinx_zynq_timer_init(void)
> >> > xttcps_timer_init();
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static struct map_desc zynq_cortex_a9_scu_map __initdata = {
> >> > + .length = SZ_8K,
> >>
> >> That's bogus. Size 8k is too big because it also cover gic which is wrong.
> >> As you can see from xilinx git repo correct size is 256 or less.
> >>
> >
> > Hm,... you are obviously correct. 256 it is.
> >
> >> > + .type = MT_DEVICE,
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> > +void __init zynq_scu_map_io(void)
> >>
> >> Should be static.
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> > +{
> >> > + if (scu_a9_has_base()) {
> >>
> >> I am not calling this function because I think it is not necessary to do so
> >> because it is run only on a9 where scu_a9_get_base will just work.
> >> Of did I miss anything?
> >>
> >
> > As long as this file is only used for zynqs with A9 this call is not needed.
> > Right.
> >
> >>
> >> > + unsigned long base;
> >> > +
> >> > + base = scu_a9_get_base();
> >> > + zynq_cortex_a9_scu_map.pfn = __phys_to_pfn(base);
> >> > + zynq_cortex_a9_scu_map.virtual = base;
> >> > + iotable_init(&zynq_cortex_a9_scu_map, 1);
> >> > + scu_base = ioremap(base, zynq_cortex_a9_scu_map.length);
> >> > + }
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > /**
> >> > * xilinx_map_io() - Create memory mappings needed for early I/O.
> >> > */
> >> > static void __init xilinx_map_io(void)
> >> > {
> >> > debug_ll_io_init();
> >> > - iotable_init(&scu_desc, 1);
> >> > + zynq_scu_map_io();
> >> > }
> >>
> >> You are using a little bit different names than we have in xilinx git tree
> >> but maybe worth to call it as you.
> >>
> >
> > I propose using the common mainline way of calling this functions.
> > When there maybe will be more xilinx SoCs in mainline it will be easier to find
> > what one is looking for.
>
> yes. Let's wait for finishing this discussion and I also like your names.
> I will change my patches to it and I will also add you as the author.
>
> > I actually wanted to make an RFC patch naming everything to zynq_* instead of
> > xilinx_* and replace the "MACHINE_START(XILINX_EP107,...".
> > Didn't get around to is though.
>
> I haven't started with it but yes, I would like to do this change too.
> IRC: The original post was done by John Linn and it has to go through
> Russel I think.
> EP107 was emulating platform and none is using it right now.
> Also I hope we have removed all PSS prefix from all files.
> It was caused because we didn't know what will be commercial name for
> this product.
>
Okay, I'm confused now. What/Where is the official for-next branch for
Zynq? MAINTAINERS says arch/arm/mach-zynq goes via
git://git.xilinx.com/linux-xlnx.git
But the arm-next branch in there is behind mainline.
Are the patches collected in arm-soc/for-next instead?
If I'm doing this patch I need to have the correct base for it.
Regards,
Steffen
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list