Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
To: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org>
cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
        Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan@samsung.com>,
        Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@samsung.com>,
        Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@samsung.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Tushar Behera <trblinux@gmail.com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: EXYNOS: mcpm: Don't rely on firmware's
 secondary_cpu_start
In-Reply-To: <CAL1qeaGv+hBCr8oqs-E2j_Qh0Z=ZTVEaM-gdyu286Snu4otbMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1406091617181.25775@knanqh.ubzr>
References: <1402090985-8061-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <1402096465-13218-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <7htx7uq7k1.fsf@paris.lan> <CAL1qeaGv+hBCr8oqs-E2j_Qh0Z=ZTVEaM-gdyu286Snu4otbMA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote:

> > [1] While waiting for the forth-coming patch from Andrew to enable the
> >     CCI port for the boot cluster), I do this from u-boot before starting
> >     the kernel (based on earlier email from Doug):
> >
> >     mw.l 10d25000 3  # Enable CCI from U-Boot
> 
> From the other thread, it sounds like Nicolas wants enabling of the
> boot cluster's CCI port to be done unconditionally for all MCPM
> platforms.  Nicolas, are you preparing a patch for this or should I?

I would like confirmation this indeed solves your problem first before I 
go ahead with it.

> The only issue I see with making the MCPM loopback generic is that
> although all current mainline MCPM platforms have the same cache flush
> procedure, a future platform could be different.

If you look at my patch the cache flush is factored out.


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/