linux_dsm_epyc7002/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c

455 lines
9.9 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
// Copyright (c) 2010-2011 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
// http://www.samsung.com
//
// Cloned from linux/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/platsmp.c
//
// Copyright (C) 2002 ARM Ltd.
// All Rights Reserved
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/errno.h>
#include <linux/delay.h>
#include <linux/jiffies.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <linux/of_address.h>
#include <linux/soc/samsung/exynos-regs-pmu.h>
#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
#include <asm/cp15.h>
#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
#include <asm/smp_scu.h>
#include <asm/firmware.h>
#include <mach/map.h>
#include "common.h"
extern void exynos4_secondary_startup(void);
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
/* XXX exynos_pen_release is cargo culted code - DO NOT COPY XXX */
volatile int exynos_pen_release = -1;
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
static inline void cpu_leave_lowpower(u32 core_id)
{
unsigned int v;
asm volatile(
"mrc p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 0\n"
" orr %0, %0, %1\n"
" mcr p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 0\n"
" mrc p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 1\n"
" orr %0, %0, %2\n"
" mcr p15, 0, %0, c1, c0, 1\n"
: "=&r" (v)
: "Ir" (CR_C), "Ir" (0x40)
: "cc");
}
static inline void platform_do_lowpower(unsigned int cpu, int *spurious)
{
u32 mpidr = cpu_logical_map(cpu);
u32 core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
for (;;) {
/* Turn the CPU off on next WFI instruction. */
exynos_cpu_power_down(core_id);
wfi();
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
if (exynos_pen_release == core_id) {
/*
* OK, proper wakeup, we're done
*/
break;
}
/*
* Getting here, means that we have come out of WFI without
* having been woken up - this shouldn't happen
*
* Just note it happening - when we're woken, we can report
* its occurrence.
*/
(*spurious)++;
}
}
#endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU */
/**
* exynos_core_power_down : power down the specified cpu
* @cpu : the cpu to power down
*
* Power down the specified cpu. The sequence must be finished by a
* call to cpu_do_idle()
*
*/
void exynos_cpu_power_down(int cpu)
{
u32 core_conf;
if (cpu == 0 && (soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800())) {
/*
* Bypass power down for CPU0 during suspend. Check for
* the SYS_PWR_REG value to decide if we are suspending
* the system.
*/
int val = pmu_raw_readl(EXYNOS5_ARM_CORE0_SYS_PWR_REG);
if (!(val & S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN))
return;
}
core_conf = pmu_raw_readl(EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_CONFIGURATION(cpu));
core_conf &= ~S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN;
pmu_raw_writel(core_conf, EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_CONFIGURATION(cpu));
}
/**
* exynos_cpu_power_up : power up the specified cpu
* @cpu : the cpu to power up
*
* Power up the specified cpu
*/
void exynos_cpu_power_up(int cpu)
{
u32 core_conf = S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN;
if (soc_is_exynos3250())
core_conf |= S5P_CORE_AUTOWAKEUP_EN;
pmu_raw_writel(core_conf,
EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_CONFIGURATION(cpu));
}
/**
* exynos_cpu_power_state : returns the power state of the cpu
* @cpu : the cpu to retrieve the power state from
*
*/
int exynos_cpu_power_state(int cpu)
{
return (pmu_raw_readl(EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_STATUS(cpu)) &
S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN);
}
/**
* exynos_cluster_power_down : power down the specified cluster
* @cluster : the cluster to power down
*/
void exynos_cluster_power_down(int cluster)
{
pmu_raw_writel(0, EXYNOS_COMMON_CONFIGURATION(cluster));
}
/**
* exynos_cluster_power_up : power up the specified cluster
* @cluster : the cluster to power up
*/
void exynos_cluster_power_up(int cluster)
{
pmu_raw_writel(S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN,
EXYNOS_COMMON_CONFIGURATION(cluster));
}
/**
* exynos_cluster_power_state : returns the power state of the cluster
* @cluster : the cluster to retrieve the power state from
*
*/
int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster)
{
return (pmu_raw_readl(EXYNOS_COMMON_STATUS(cluster)) &
S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN);
}
/**
* exynos_scu_enable : enables SCU for Cortex-A9 based system
*/
void exynos_scu_enable(void)
{
struct device_node *np;
static void __iomem *scu_base;
if (!scu_base) {
np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,cortex-a9-scu");
if (np) {
scu_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
of_node_put(np);
} else {
scu_base = ioremap(scu_a9_get_base(), SZ_4K);
}
}
scu_enable(scu_base);
}
static void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg_base(void)
{
if (soc_is_exynos4210() && samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1)
return pmu_base_addr + S5P_INFORM5;
return sysram_base_addr;
}
static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg(int cpu)
{
void __iomem *boot_reg;
boot_reg = cpu_boot_reg_base();
if (!boot_reg)
return IOMEM_ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
if (soc_is_exynos4412())
boot_reg += 4*cpu;
else if (soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800())
boot_reg += 4;
return boot_reg;
}
/*
* Set wake up by local power mode and execute software reset for given core.
*
* Currently this is needed only when booting secondary CPU on Exynos3250.
*/
void exynos_core_restart(u32 core_id)
{
unsigned int timeout = 16;
u32 val;
if (!of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250"))
return;
while (timeout && !pmu_raw_readl(S5P_PMU_SPARE2)) {
timeout--;
udelay(10);
}
if (timeout == 0) {
pr_err("cpu core %u restart failed\n", core_id);
return;
}
udelay(10);
val = pmu_raw_readl(EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_STATUS(core_id));
val |= S5P_CORE_WAKEUP_FROM_LOCAL_CFG;
pmu_raw_writel(val, EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_STATUS(core_id));
pmu_raw_writel(EXYNOS_CORE_PO_RESET(core_id), EXYNOS_SWRESET);
}
/*
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
* XXX CARGO CULTED CODE - DO NOT COPY XXX
*
* Write exynos_pen_release in a way that is guaranteed to be visible to
* all observers, irrespective of whether they're taking part in coherency
* or not. This is necessary for the hotplug code to work reliably.
*/
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
static void exynos_write_pen_release(int val)
{
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
exynos_pen_release = val;
smp_wmb();
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
sync_cache_w(&exynos_pen_release);
}
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock);
arm: delete __cpuinit/__CPUINIT usage from all ARM users The __cpuinit type of throwaway sections might have made sense some time ago when RAM was more constrained, but now the savings do not offset the cost and complications. For example, the fix in commit 5e427ec2d0 ("x86: Fix bit corruption at CPU resume time") is a good example of the nasty type of bugs that can be created with improper use of the various __init prefixes. After a discussion on LKML[1] it was decided that cpuinit should go the way of devinit and be phased out. Once all the users are gone, we can then finally remove the macros themselves from linux/init.h. Note that some harmless section mismatch warnings may result, since notify_cpu_starting() and cpu_up() are arch independent (kernel/cpu.c) and are flagged as __cpuinit -- so if we remove the __cpuinit from the arch specific callers, we will also get section mismatch warnings. As an intermediate step, we intend to turn the linux/init.h cpuinit related content into no-ops as early as possible, since that will get rid of these warnings. In any case, they are temporary and harmless. This removes all the ARM uses of the __cpuinit macros from C code, and all __CPUINIT from assembly code. It also had two ".previous" section statements that were paired off against __CPUINIT (aka .section ".cpuinit.text") that also get removed here. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/20/589 Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
2013-06-18 02:43:14 +07:00
static void exynos_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
{
/*
* let the primary processor know we're out of the
* pen, then head off into the C entry point
*/
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
exynos_write_pen_release(-1);
/*
* Synchronise with the boot thread.
*/
spin_lock(&boot_lock);
spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
}
int exynos_set_boot_addr(u32 core_id, unsigned long boot_addr)
{
int ret;
/*
* Try to set boot address using firmware first
* and fall back to boot register if it fails.
*/
ret = call_firmware_op(set_cpu_boot_addr, core_id, boot_addr);
if (ret && ret != -ENOSYS)
goto fail;
if (ret == -ENOSYS) {
void __iomem *boot_reg = cpu_boot_reg(core_id);
if (IS_ERR(boot_reg)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(boot_reg);
goto fail;
}
writel_relaxed(boot_addr, boot_reg);
ret = 0;
}
fail:
return ret;
}
int exynos_get_boot_addr(u32 core_id, unsigned long *boot_addr)
{
int ret;
/*
* Try to get boot address using firmware first
* and fall back to boot register if it fails.
*/
ret = call_firmware_op(get_cpu_boot_addr, core_id, boot_addr);
if (ret && ret != -ENOSYS)
goto fail;
if (ret == -ENOSYS) {
void __iomem *boot_reg = cpu_boot_reg(core_id);
if (IS_ERR(boot_reg)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(boot_reg);
goto fail;
}
*boot_addr = readl_relaxed(boot_reg);
ret = 0;
}
fail:
return ret;
}
arm: delete __cpuinit/__CPUINIT usage from all ARM users The __cpuinit type of throwaway sections might have made sense some time ago when RAM was more constrained, but now the savings do not offset the cost and complications. For example, the fix in commit 5e427ec2d0 ("x86: Fix bit corruption at CPU resume time") is a good example of the nasty type of bugs that can be created with improper use of the various __init prefixes. After a discussion on LKML[1] it was decided that cpuinit should go the way of devinit and be phased out. Once all the users are gone, we can then finally remove the macros themselves from linux/init.h. Note that some harmless section mismatch warnings may result, since notify_cpu_starting() and cpu_up() are arch independent (kernel/cpu.c) and are flagged as __cpuinit -- so if we remove the __cpuinit from the arch specific callers, we will also get section mismatch warnings. As an intermediate step, we intend to turn the linux/init.h cpuinit related content into no-ops as early as possible, since that will get rid of these warnings. In any case, they are temporary and harmless. This removes all the ARM uses of the __cpuinit macros from C code, and all __CPUINIT from assembly code. It also had two ".previous" section statements that were paired off against __CPUINIT (aka .section ".cpuinit.text") that also get removed here. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/20/589 Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
2013-06-18 02:43:14 +07:00
static int exynos_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
{
unsigned long timeout;
u32 mpidr = cpu_logical_map(cpu);
u32 core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
int ret = -ENOSYS;
/*
* Set synchronisation state between this boot processor
* and the secondary one
*/
spin_lock(&boot_lock);
/*
* The secondary processor is waiting to be released from
* the holding pen - release it, then wait for it to flag
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
* that it has been released by resetting exynos_pen_release.
*
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
* Note that "exynos_pen_release" is the hardware CPU core ID, whereas
* "cpu" is Linux's internal ID.
*/
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
exynos_write_pen_release(core_id);
if (!exynos_cpu_power_state(core_id)) {
exynos_cpu_power_up(core_id);
timeout = 10;
/* wait max 10 ms until cpu1 is on */
while (exynos_cpu_power_state(core_id)
!= S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN) {
if (timeout == 0)
break;
timeout--;
mdelay(1);
}
if (timeout == 0) {
printk(KERN_ERR "cpu1 power enable failed");
spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
return -ETIMEDOUT;
}
}
exynos_core_restart(core_id);
/*
* Send the secondary CPU a soft interrupt, thereby causing
* the boot monitor to read the system wide flags register,
* and branch to the address found there.
*/
timeout = jiffies + (1 * HZ);
while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
unsigned long boot_addr;
smp_rmb();
boot_addr = __pa_symbol(exynos4_secondary_startup);
ret = exynos_set_boot_addr(core_id, boot_addr);
if (ret)
goto fail;
call_firmware_op(cpu_boot, core_id);
if (soc_is_exynos3250())
dsb_sev();
else
arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask(cpumask_of(cpu));
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
if (exynos_pen_release == -1)
break;
udelay(10);
}
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
if (exynos_pen_release != -1)
ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
/*
* now the secondary core is starting up let it run its
* calibrations, then wait for it to finish
*/
fail:
spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release" Consolidating the "pen_release" stuff amongst the various SoC implementations gives credence to having a CPU holding pen for secondary CPUs. However, this is far from the truth. Many SoC implementations cargo-cult copied various bits of the pen release implementation from the initial Realview/Versatile Express implementation without understanding what it was or why it existed. The reason it existed is because these are _development_ platforms, and some board firmware is unable to individually control the startup of secondary CPUs. Moreover, they do not have a way to power down or reset secondary CPUs for hot-unplug. Hence, the pen_release implementation was designed for ARM Ltd's development platforms to provide a working implementation, even though it is very far from what is required. It was decided a while back to reduce the duplication by consolidating the "pen_release" variable, but this only made the situation worse - we have ended up with several implementations that read this variable but do not write it - again, showing the cargo-cult mentality at work, lack of proper review of new code, and in some cases a lack of testing. While it would be preferable to remove pen_release entirely from the kernel, this is not possible without help from the SoC maintainers, which seems to be lacking. However, I want to remove pen_release from arch code to remove the credence that having it gives. This patch removes pen_release from the arch code entirely, adding private per-SoC definitions for it instead, and explicitly stating that write_pen_release() is cargo-cult copied and should not be copied any further. Rename write_pen_release() in a similar fashion as well. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
2018-12-13 21:02:48 +07:00
return exynos_pen_release != -1 ? ret : 0;
}
static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
{
exynos_sysram_init();
exynos_set_delayed_reset_assertion(true);
if (read_cpuid_part() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9)
exynos_scu_enable();
}
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
/*
* platform-specific code to shutdown a CPU
*
* Called with IRQs disabled
*/
static void exynos_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
int spurious = 0;
u32 mpidr = cpu_logical_map(cpu);
u32 core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
v7_exit_coherency_flush(louis);
platform_do_lowpower(cpu, &spurious);
/*
* bring this CPU back into the world of cache
* coherency, and then restore interrupts
*/
cpu_leave_lowpower(core_id);
if (spurious)
pr_warn("CPU%u: %u spurious wakeup calls\n", cpu, spurious);
}
#endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU */
const struct smp_operations exynos_smp_ops __initconst = {
.smp_prepare_cpus = exynos_smp_prepare_cpus,
.smp_secondary_init = exynos_secondary_init,
.smp_boot_secondary = exynos_boot_secondary,
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
.cpu_die = exynos_cpu_die,
#endif
};