Hi Viresh,
On Thursday 29 of August 2013 13:45:56 Viresh Kumar wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Chander Kashyap
chander.kashyap@linaro.org wrote:
Instead of having to specify the number for CPUs in Exynos5250 in platsmp.c file, let the number of CPUs be determined by having this information listed in Exynos5250 device tree file.
Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap chander.kashyap@linaro.org Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa t.figa@samsung.com
arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 10 +++++++--- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi index 63ca03d..1aeef98 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi @@ -50,6 +50,22 @@
pinctrl3 = &pinctrl_3; };
cpus {#address-cells = <1>;#size-cells = <0>;cpu@0 {device_type = "cpu";compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";reg = <0>;};cpu@1 {device_type = "cpu";compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";reg = <1>;};};pd_gsc: gsc-power-domain@0x10044000 { compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-pd"; reg = <0x10044000 0x20>;diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c index 1a4e4e5..85ea4ca 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c @@ -180,10 +180,14 @@ static void __init exynos_smp_init_cpus(void)
void __iomem *scu_base = scu_base_addr(); unsigned int i, ncores;
if (soc_is_exynos5250())ncores = 2;else
if (read_cpuid_part_number() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) ncores = scu_base ? scu_get_core_count(scu_base) : 1;else/** CPU Nodes are passed thru DT and set_cpu_possible* is set by "arm_dt_init_cpu_maps".*/return; /* sanity check */ if (ncores > nr_cpu_ids) {After this patch only one cpu is coming up for me on my Arndale board.. Revert of this one fixes the issue though (Tested over v3.11-rc7)
It is quite likely that 0 and 1 are not real MPIDR values for CPU cores on Exynos5250, because cluster ID might not be 0, as one could expect.
This is what I found out on Exynos4210 and 4x12, when trying to add CPU nodes in DT for them, leading in turn to a series of regressions, for which it was to late to do all the necessary code rework to fix them for 3.12, so I had to defer this work for next release.
Best regards, Tomasz