[PATCH v2 2/3] arm: exynos: Add MCPM call-back functions
Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezcano at linaro.org
Wed Apr 23 13:56:57 PDT 2014
On 04/23/2014 05:31 PM, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 04/22/2014 08:17 AM, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
>>>
>>> Add machine-dependent MCPM call-backs for Exynos5420. These are used
>>> to power up/down the secondary CPUs during boot, shutdown, s2r and
>>> switching.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab at samsung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s at samsung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic at chromium.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan at samsung.com>
>>> ---
[ ... ]
>>> +#include <plat/cpu.h>
>>> +#include "regs-pmu.h"
>>> +
>>> +#define EXYNOS5420_CPUS_PER_CLUSTER 4
>>> +#define EXYNOS5420_NR_CLUSTERS 2
>>> +
>>> +/* Secondary CPU entry point */
>>> +#define REG_ENTRY_ADDR (S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS + 0x1C)
>>> +
>>> +#define EXYNOS_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN 0x3
>>> +#define EXYNOS_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_DIS 0x0
>>>
>>> +#define EXYNOS_ARM_COMMON_CONFIGURATION S5P_PMUREG(0x2500)
>>> +#define EXYNOS_ARM_L2_CONFIGURATION S5P_PMUREG(0x2600)
>>> +
>>> +#define EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_CONFIGURATION(_nr) \
>>> + (S5P_ARM_CORE0_CONFIGURATION + ((_nr) * 0x80))
>>> +#define EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_STATUS(_nr) \
>>> + (S5P_ARM_CORE0_STATUS + ((_nr) * 0x80))
>>> +
>>> +#define EXYNOS_COMMON_CONFIGURATION(_nr) \
>>> + (EXYNOS_ARM_COMMON_CONFIGURATION + ((_nr) * 0x80))
>>> +#define EXYNOS_COMMON_STATUS(_nr) \
>>> + (EXYNOS_COMMON_CONFIGURATION(_nr) + 0x4)
>>> +
>>> +#define EXYNOS_L2_CONFIGURATION(_nr) \
>>> + (EXYNOS_ARM_L2_CONFIGURATION + ((_nr) * 0x80))
>>> +#define EXYNOS_L2_STATUS(_nr) \
>>> + (EXYNOS_L2_CONFIGURATION(_nr) + 0x4)
>>> +
>>
>>
>> Is it possible to share the definition of those macros with the rest of the
>> code via functions, so they can be re-used for the other sub-systems ? eg:
>> https://patches.linaro.org/27798/
> OK..I will work on making wrapper functions for these. Would these new
> functions be better placed in the mcpm code or the pm code ?
Hi Abhilash,
yes, in the pm code. That would make more sense.
Thanks
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list