Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 5/5][v2] armv8/fsl-lsch3: Update code to release secondary cores
On 10/24/2016 08:49 AM, york.sun@nxp.com wrote:
On 10/24/2016 01:33 AM, Priyanka Jain wrote:
NXP ARMv8 SoC LS2080A release all secondary cores in one-go. But other new SoCs like LS2088A, LS1088A release secondary cores one by one to avoid power spike.
Update code to release secondary cores based on SoC SVR Add code to release cores one by one for non LS2080A SoCs
Signed-off-by: Priyanka Jain priyanka.jain@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Raghav Dogra raghav.dogra@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha prabhakar.kushwaha@nxp.com
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c | 2 +- arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h | 1 + arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c index ce04e48..15d157c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ void enable_caches(void) } #endif
-static inline u32 initiator_type(u32 cluster, int init_id) +inline u32 initiator_type(u32 cluster, int init_id) { struct ccsr_gur *gur = (void *)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_GUTS_ADDR); u32 idx = (cluster >> (init_id * 8)) & TP_CLUSTER_INIT_MASK; diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h index 8072f3c..a05f8aa 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h @@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ */
int fsl_qoriq_core_to_cluster(unsigned int core); +u32 initiator_type(u32 cluster, int init_id); u32 cpu_mask(void); diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c index f607c39..5cf080f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ #include <asm/system.h> #include <asm/arch/mp.h> #include <asm/arch/soc.h> +#include "cpu.h" +#include <asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/soc.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -22,11 +24,30 @@ phys_addr_t determine_mp_bootpg(void) return (phys_addr_t)&secondary_boot_code; }
+#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_LSCH3 +void wake_secondary_core_n(int cluster, int core, int cluster_cores) +{
- struct ccsr_gur __iomem *gur = (void *)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_GUTS_ADDR);
- struct ccsr_reset __iomem *rst = (void *)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_RST_ADDR);
- u32 mpidr = 0;
- mpidr = ((cluster << 8) | core);
- gur_out32(&gur->scratchrw[6], mpidr);
What's the definition of each bit for scratchrw[6]? Before this patch, secondary cores only check if it is zero.
- asm volatile("dsb st" : : : "memory");
- rst->brrl |= 1 << ((cluster * cluster_cores) + core);
- asm volatile("dsb st" : : : "memory");
- while (gur_in32(&gur->scratchrw[6]) != 0)
;Does each secondary core clear this register after it starts to run?
Priyanka,
I got hold of the architect for the bootrom. I understand the story behind the release one-by-one now. It would be better if you can add some comments for scratchrw[6] for its expected behaviour.
York
-----Original Message----- From: york sun Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:37 AM To: Priyanka Jain priyanka.jain@nxp.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Prabhakar Kushwaha prabhakar.kushwaha@nxp.com Cc: Raghav Dogra raghav.dogra@nxp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5][v2] armv8/fsl-lsch3: Update code to release secondary cores
On 10/24/2016 08:49 AM, york.sun@nxp.com wrote:
On 10/24/2016 01:33 AM, Priyanka Jain wrote:
NXP ARMv8 SoC LS2080A release all secondary cores in one-go. But other new SoCs like LS2088A, LS1088A release secondary cores one by one to avoid power spike.
Update code to release secondary cores based on SoC SVR Add code to release cores one by one for non LS2080A SoCs
Signed-off-by: Priyanka Jain priyanka.jain@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Raghav Dogra raghav.dogra@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha prabhakar.kushwaha@nxp.com
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c | 2 +- arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h | 1 + arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c index ce04e48..15d157c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.c @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ void enable_caches(void) } #endif
-static inline u32 initiator_type(u32 cluster, int init_id) +inline u32 initiator_type(u32 cluster, int init_id) { struct ccsr_gur *gur = (void *)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_GUTS_ADDR); u32 idx = (cluster >> (init_id * 8)) & TP_CLUSTER_INIT_MASK; diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h index 8072f3c..a05f8aa 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/cpu.h @@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ */
int fsl_qoriq_core_to_cluster(unsigned int core); +u32 initiator_type(u32 cluster, int init_id); u32 cpu_mask(void); diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c index f607c39..5cf080f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/mp.c @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ #include <asm/system.h> #include <asm/arch/mp.h> #include <asm/arch/soc.h> +#include "cpu.h" +#include <asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/soc.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -22,11 +24,30 @@ phys_addr_t determine_mp_bootpg(void) return (phys_addr_t)&secondary_boot_code; }
+#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_LSCH3 +void wake_secondary_core_n(int cluster, int core, int cluster_cores) +{
- struct ccsr_gur __iomem *gur = (void
*)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_GUTS_ADDR);
- struct ccsr_reset __iomem *rst = (void
*)(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_RST_ADDR);
- u32 mpidr = 0;
- mpidr = ((cluster << 8) | core);
- gur_out32(&gur->scratchrw[6], mpidr);
What's the definition of each bit for scratchrw[6]? Before this patch, secondary cores only check if it is zero.
- asm volatile("dsb st" : : : "memory");
- rst->brrl |= 1 << ((cluster * cluster_cores) + core);
- asm volatile("dsb st" : : : "memory");
- while (gur_in32(&gur->scratchrw[6]) != 0)
;Does each secondary core clear this register after it starts to run?
Priyanka,
I got hold of the architect for the bootrom. I understand the story behind the release one-by-one now. It would be better if you can add some comments for scratchrw[6] for its expected behaviour.
York
Thanks for your inputs. I will add the comments in code about scratchrcw[6]
participants (2)
-
Priyanka Jain -
york sun