[PATCH v8 4/8] ARM: EXYNOS: refactor firmware specific routines
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzk at kernel.org
Fri Dec 16 10:25:31 PST 2016
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 06:38:39PM +0530, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> To remove dependency on soc_is_exynosMMMM macros and remove multiple
> checks for such macros lets refactor code in firmware.c file.
> SoC specific firmware_ops are separated and registered during
> exynos_firmware_init based on matching machine compatible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey at samsung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> index fd6da54..525fbd9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,25 @@ static void exynos_save_cp15(void)
> : : "cc");
> }
>
> +static int exynos3250_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
> +{
> + switch (mode) {
> + case FW_DO_IDLE_AFTR:
> + writel_relaxed(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
> + sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
> + writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
> + flush_cache_all();
> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
> + SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SHUTDOWN, OP_TYPE_CLUSTER,
> + SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> + break;
> + case FW_DO_IDLE_SLEEP:
> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SLEEP, 0, 0, 0);
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
> {
> switch (mode) {
> @@ -44,14 +63,7 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
> writel_relaxed(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
> sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
> writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
> - if (soc_is_exynos3250()) {
> - flush_cache_all();
> - exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
> - SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> - exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SHUTDOWN, OP_TYPE_CLUSTER,
> - SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
> - } else
> - exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU0AFTR, 0, 0, 0);
> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU0AFTR, 0, 0, 0);
> break;
> case FW_DO_IDLE_SLEEP:
> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SLEEP, 0, 0, 0);
> @@ -59,28 +71,25 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu)
> +static int exynos4412_cpu_boot(int cpu)
> {
> /*
> - * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot
> - * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode.
> - */
> - if (soc_is_exynos3250())
> - return 0;
> -
> - /*
> * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id.
> * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter
> * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id.
> */
> - if (soc_is_exynos4212())
> - cpu = 0;
> + cpu = 0;
Why are you clearing the cpu for Exynos4412? Was it tested on
Exynos4412?
> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0);
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> +static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu)
> +{
> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0);
This will be executed on Exynos4212...
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
> +static int exynos4412_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
> {
> void __iomem *boot_reg;
>
> @@ -94,14 +103,24 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
> * additional offset for every CPU, with Exynos4412 being the only
> * exception.
> */
> - if (soc_is_exynos4412())
> - boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
> + boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
> + writel_relaxed(boot_addr, boot_reg);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
> +{
> + void __iomem *boot_reg;
>
> + if (!sysram_ns_base_addr)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c;
> writel_relaxed(boot_addr, boot_reg);
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
> +static int exynos4412_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
> {
> void __iomem *boot_reg;
>
> @@ -109,10 +128,19 @@ static int exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c;
> + boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
> + *boot_addr = readl_relaxed(boot_reg);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
> +{
> + void __iomem *boot_reg;
>
> - if (soc_is_exynos4412())
> - boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
> + if (!sysram_ns_base_addr)
> + return -ENODEV;
>
> + boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c;
> *boot_addr = readl_relaxed(boot_reg);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -148,6 +176,23 @@ static int exynos_resume(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static const struct firmware_ops exynos3250_firmware_ops = {
> + .do_idle = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos3250_do_idle : NULL,
> + .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr,
> + .get_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr,
You know that lack of cpu_boot() is not equivalent to previous
'return 0' code? Now -ENOSYS will be returned... which is not a problem
because return values for cpu_boot are ignored... just wondering whether
this was planned.
> + .suspend = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) ? exynos_suspend : NULL,
> + .resume = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_resume : NULL,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct firmware_ops exynos4412_firmware_ops = {
> + .do_idle = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_do_idle : NULL,
> + .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4412_set_cpu_boot_addr,
> + .get_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4412_get_cpu_boot_addr,
> + .cpu_boot = exynos4412_cpu_boot,
> + .suspend = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) ? exynos_suspend : NULL,
> + .resume = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_resume : NULL,
> +};
> +
> static const struct firmware_ops exynos_firmware_ops = {
> .do_idle = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_do_idle : NULL,
> .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr,
> @@ -212,7 +257,12 @@ void __init exynos_firmware_init(void)
>
> pr_info("Running under secure firmware.\n");
>
> - register_firmware_ops(&exynos_firmware_ops);
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250"))
> + register_firmware_ops(&exynos3250_firmware_ops);
> + else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412"))
> + register_firmware_ops(&exynos4412_firmware_ops);
> + else
> + register_firmware_ops(&exynos_firmware_ops);
I prefer one register_firmware_ops() call, so something like:
const struct firmware_ops *ops;
if (...)
ops = &exynos3250_firmware_ops;
else if ()
...
register_firmware_ops(ops);
It is a matter of taste but for me it is more common pattern, looks more
readable and it reduces number of callers to register_firmware_ops() (so
it is easier to find them).
Krzysztof
>
> /*
> * Exynos 4 SoCs (based on Cortex A9 and equipped with L2C-310),
> --
> 2.7.4
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list