[PATCH v9 01/12] ARM: EXYNOS: refactor firmware specific routines

[pankaj.dubey]

On Friday 07 April 2017 01:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey at samsung.com> wrote:
>> To remove dependency on soc_is_exynosMMMM macros and remove multiple
>> checks for such macros, let's 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 | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
>> index e81a78b..b04c47a 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(__pa_symbol(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 exynos4212_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;
> 
> The comment above is clear enough so I think there is no need for this
> assignment. Just use 0 as argument in exynos_smc().
> 

Ok, will modify accordingly in next patchset.

> Rest looks good so with this change:
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> 

Thanks for review,
Pankaj Dubey

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 
>