On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:30:01PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-9-5 17:22, Graeme Gregory wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:16:05PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-9-5 16:51, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
W dniu 02.09.2013 14:03, Hanjun Guo pisze:
From: Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com
We currently do an ldr from GICC_CTLR to w0, then immediately overwrite w0 with a mov. Reading the GICC_CTLR has no effect on the state of the GIC, so there's no reason to do the ldr. It's also inconsistent with the way we set the GICD_CTLR.
Fix this.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com
boot.S | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/boot.S b/boot.S index a1f25e2..7c28e84 100644 --- a/boot.S +++ b/boot.S @@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ _start: str w0, [x1], #4
2: ldr x1, =GIC_CPU_BASE // GICC_CTLR
- ldr w0, [x1] mov w0, #3 // EnableGrp0 | EnableGrp1 str w0, [x1]
Hi Hanjun,
Should it be reviewed? I see one Graeme's commit (already reviewed) and the others around assembler code. Is it enabler that has locked order?
I don't think we should review this patch set, because this patch set for boot wrapper is already in ARM's boot wrapper git tree:
http://linux-arm.org/git?p=boot-wrapper-aarch64.git%3Ba=shortlog%3Bh=refs/he...
This patch set is based on this commit (73ecb28f, Allow CROSS_COMPILE override on the make command line), and I rebased Graeme's ACPI blob patch on top of it to test my CPU hotplug code.
Hi Hanjun,
Have you pushed the results of that to a repository? It sounds like we should
Not yet. Can I create a branch for it in your bootwrapper git repo?
I have just converted it to a shared repo so yes this is OK, please do.
update to use your bootwrapper?
I have no objections, but this version of bootwrapper contains PSCI support, if this is no impact to our test (I have tested it with our foundation-v8-acpi.dts and ACPI kernel, it is OK, still need your conformation), we can update it.
Yes I think if it does not break anything we should use it as default.
Graeme