| Message ID | 1400497757-18991-1-git-send-email-tushar.behera@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Tushar, Sachin, On 19.05.2014 13:09, Tushar Behera wrote: > From: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> > > Updated secondary boot register offset for Exynos5420 in case of > secure booting. > > Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@linaro.org> > --- > > The patches are based on top of next-20140519. With these two patches applied, > we can get all A15 cores booting up on Arndale-Octa board. > > arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c > index 739bdc8..5e0902e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr) > > boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c; > > - if (!soc_is_exynos4212()) > + if (!soc_is_exynos4212() && !soc_is_exynos5420()) > boot_reg += 4*cpu; I think it is safe to change this simply to if (soc_is_exynos4412()), since this seems to be the only SoC on which the firmware requires this offset. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/19/2014 05:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Tushar, Sachin, > > On 19.05.2014 13:09, Tushar Behera wrote: >> From: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> >> >> Updated secondary boot register offset for Exynos5420 in case of >> secure booting. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@linaro.org> >> --- >> >> The patches are based on top of next-20140519. With these two patches applied, >> we can get all A15 cores booting up on Arndale-Octa board. >> >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >> index 739bdc8..5e0902e 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr) >> >> boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c; >> >> - if (!soc_is_exynos4212()) >> + if (!soc_is_exynos4212() && !soc_is_exynos5420()) >> boot_reg += 4*cpu; > > I think it is safe to change this simply to if (soc_is_exynos4412()), > since this seems to be the only SoC on which the firmware requires this > offset. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > Fair enough. Even Exynos3250 doesn't require this. I will resend this patch.
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c index 739bdc8..5e0902e 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr) boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c; - if (!soc_is_exynos4212()) + if (!soc_is_exynos4212() && !soc_is_exynos5420()) boot_reg += 4*cpu; __raw_writel(boot_addr, boot_reg);