[PATCH v3] arm-soc: Add support for Sigma Designs Tango4

[Marc Gonzalez]

On 13/10/2015 19:55, Rob Herring wrote:
> Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 16:08, Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>>> No cpus node?
>>
>> Is this used to document the CPU?
>> I didn't see any code making use of that information.
> 
> The SMP code uses it: arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c

Now I see arm_dt_init_cpu_maps()

<confused> I thought DT was used to specify things that cannot be
dynamically discovered? Isn't it possible for the OS to discover at
run-time how many cores and/or CPUs are present?

On a related topic, I have a DTS for my board, which includes the
DTS for the architecture. However, there are single-core SoCs and
dual-core SoCs. Where is the cpus node supposed to appear?

Or should I specify in the architecture DTS the maximum number
of cores, as in

    cpus {
        #address-cells = <1>;
        #size-cells = <0>;
        cpu at 0 {
            compatible = "arm,cortex-a9";
            reg = <0>;
        };
        cpu at 1 {
            compatible = "arm,cortex-a9";
            reg = <1>;
        };
    };


>>> No pl310? A9 performance mon?

Found "arm,cortex-a9-pmu" in arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c
Are the PMU registers available from non-secure mode, or is TrustZone
going to get in the way?


About the cache controller, I was confused by this comment:
	/*
	 * Always enable non-secure access to the lockdown registers -
	 * we write to them as part of the L2C enable sequence so they
	 * need to be accessible.
	 */
	l2x0_saved_regs.aux_ctrl = aux | L310_AUX_CTRL_NS_LOCKDOWN;

I see no lock() function, only unlock().

But the unlock function merely writes 0 to the relevant registers,
and 0 is the value at reset for those registers. Since nothing ever
sets the registers to non-zero, why is the unlock needed at all?


Regards.