Hi Albert,
If there hasn't any other problem, I will send out the V4 series.
Thanks very much,
BRs Xiubo
-----Original Message----- From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.u.boot@aribaud.net] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:07 PM To: Xiubo Li-B47053 Cc: Sun York-R58495; Jin Zhengxiong-R64188; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] ls102xa: HYP/non-sec: support for ls102xa boards
Hello Li.Xiubo@freescale.com,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:21:26 +0000, Li.Xiubo@freescale.com Li.Xiubo@freescale.com wrote:
Hi Albert,
-----Original Message----- From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.u.boot@aribaud.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:18 PM To: Xiubo Li-B47053 Cc: Sun York-R58495; Jin Zhengxiong-R64188; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] ls102xa: HYP/non-sec: support for ls102xa
boards
Hello Li.Xiubo@freescale.com,
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:01:02 +0000, Li.Xiubo@freescale.com Li.Xiubo@freescale.com wrote:
Hi Albert,
> > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_NONSEC) ||
defined(CONFIG_ARMV7_VIRT)
> > > > +/* Setting the address at which secondary cores start
from.*/
> > > > +void smp_set_core_boot_addr(unsigned long addr, int corenr) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct ccsr_gur __iomem *gur = (void
*)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_GUTS_ADDR);
> > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * After setting the secondary cores start address, > > > > + * just release them to boot. > > > > + */ > > > > + out_be32(&gur->scratchrw[0], addr); > > > > + out_be32(&gur->brrl, 0x2); > > > > +} > > > > > > This function does not exactly "[set] the address at which
secondary
> > > cores start from"; it sets *a* secondary core's boot address,
and
then
> > > it *boots* it. > > > > > > > Okay, I will fix it later. > > > > > Why does this version of smp_set_core_boot_addr() need to boot
the
core
> > > in addition to setting the address, whereas the existing ones
in
> > > virt_v7, vexpress_common and arndale don't boot the cores? > > > > > > > Yes, they don't doing the release operation. > > > > For Low Power Management requirement, maybe only one core will
be
used,
and
> then > > We also make sure that the secondary core must be in low power
and
deep
> sleep > > mode(using wfi). So I just release it here, to make sure that
the
wfi
> instruction > > will be executed as early as possible. > > Right after smp_set_core_boot_addr() is called, kick_all_cpus()
isgoing
> to be called. Wouldn't that boot your CPUs just as well? >
Yes, it will.
But before that we must do the holdoff bit set operation as the
SoC's
requirement.
The BRR contains control bits for enabling boot for each core. On
exiting
HRESET or
PORESET, the RCW BOOT_HO field optionally allows for logical core 0
to
be
released
for booting or to remain in boot holdoff. All other cores remain in
boot
holdoff until their
corresponding bit is set.
Maybe the comment is not very clear and a bit confusing.
Before I'm lost entirely, do you mean that the comment:
> > > > + /* > > > > + * After setting the secondary cores start address, > > > > + * just release them to boot. > > > > + */
Is actually wrong, and the instructions that follow it do not actually boot the secondary core(s)?
The comment should be: /* * After setting the secondary core's start address, * just release it from holdoff. */ From my tests, for most time the release instructions will boot the
secondary
core(s) without smp_kick_all_cpus(). One time has failed.
So I think the release can not make sure that it will boot the secondary
core(s).
Thanks for clarifying.
If a holdoff release is the right way to boot a secondary core for you, then I think the right place to do it is not smp_set_core_boot_addr() but smp_kick_all_cpus(), of which you could make a strong version which would do the holdoff release instead of whatever the weak version does.
Yes, I do think a strong version will be okay.
In file arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c, add the strong version:
+/* Release the secondary core from holdoff state and boot it */ +void smp_kick_all_cpus(void) +{
struct ccsr_gur __iomem *gur = (void *)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_GUTS_ADDR);out_be32(&gur->brrl, 0x2);+}
Is this okay ?
Yes, thanks!
I have test the holdoff release in two boards(including the old one before I used) for 37 times and all has passed. I have a check the before failed
logs,
It is another issue led to the failure. And also get confirmation that the Holdoff release will do reset and then boot the secondary core.
Good -- this makes smp_kick_all_cpus() the right home for holdoff releast.
Thanks,
Thank you for your patience. :)
BRs Xiubo
Amicalement,
Albert.