Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966301AbbD2QiV (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:38:21 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33807 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966257AbbD2QiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:38:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:38:08 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Kumar Gala Cc: "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Lina Iyer , "arm@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Catalin Marinas , Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: Add support for ARM64 SoCs Message-ID: <20150429163808.GE8781@leverpostej> References: <1430249038-30987-1-git-send-email-galak@codeaurora.org> <1430249038-30987-2-git-send-email-galak@codeaurora.org> <20150429154231.GB8781@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Thread-Topic: [PATCH v5 2/2] firmware: qcom: scm: Add support for ARM64 SoCs Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-GB, en-US User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3391 Lines: 91 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:18:04PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > Hi Kumar, > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 08:23:58PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> Add an implementation of the SCM interface that works on ARM64/64-bit SoCs > > > > What is the intended use of this on arm64 SoCs? > > > > Given the negative reaction to the SMP bringup [1] code that seems to be > > the only user, I'm somewhat confused as to why this is being pushed as a > > non-RFC in the mean time. > > > > Are there other users of this interface code? If so, could you please > > mention that in the commit message. I'd also ask that you would Cc me on > > future postings of this series. > > > > […] > > The SCM interface is needed for other things like display: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6198691/ Thanks for the link. It would be good if you could mention some users in the commit message. > >> +static int qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(void *entry, const cpumask_t *cpus, int flags) > >> +{ > >> + struct qcom_scm_desc desc = {0}; > >> + unsigned int cpu = cpumask_first(cpus); > >> + u64 mpidr_el1 = cpu_logical_map(cpu); > >> + > >> + /* For now we assume only a single cpu is set in the mask */ > >> + WARN_ON(cpumask_weight(cpus) != 1); > >> + > >> + if (mpidr_el1 & ~MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK) { > >> + pr_err("CPU%d:Failed to set boot address\n", cpu); > >> + return -ENOSYS; > >> + } > >> + > >> + desc.args[0] = virt_to_phys(entry); > >> + desc.args[1] = BIT(MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr_el1, 0)); > >> + desc.args[2] = BIT(MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr_el1, 1)); > >> + desc.args[3] = BIT(MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr_el1, 2)); > >> + desc.args[4] = ~0ULL; > >> + desc.args[5] = QCOM_SCM_FLAG_HLOS | flags; > >> + desc.arginfo = QCOM_SCM_ARGS(6); > >> + > >> + return qcom_scm_call(QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT, QCOM_SCM_BOOT_ADDR_MC, &desc); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int __qcom_scm_set_cold_boot_addr(void *entry, const cpumask_t *cpus) > >> +{ > >> + int flags = QCOM_SCM_FLAG_COLDBOOT_MC; > >> + > >> + return qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(entry, cpus, flags); > >> +} > >> + > >> +int __qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr(void *entry, const cpumask_t *cpus) > >> +{ > >> + int flags = QCOM_SCM_FLAG_WARMBOOT_MC; > >> + > >> + return qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(entry, cpus, flags); > >> +} > >> + > >> +void __qcom_scm_cpu_power_down(u32 flags) > >> +{ > >> + struct qcom_scm_desc desc = {0}; > >> + desc.args[0] = flags & QCOM_SCM_FLUSH_FLAG_MASK; > >> + desc.arginfo = QCOM_SCM_ARGS(1); > >> + > >> + qcom_scm_call_atomic(QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT, QCOM_SCM_CMD_TERMINATE_PC, &desc); > >> +} > > > > As mentioned in the other thread, I don't want to see this for arm64, > > and must NAK this portion. > > I can have these return an error code, but we want to keep the interface the same between the 32-bit and 64-bit. I don't follow. If nothing calls these on the 64-bit side, then there's no interface they need to be there for. Thanks, Mark. -- 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/