Subject: [PATCH v9 1/3] ARM: EXYNOS: Add support for EXYNOS5410 SoC

From: [email-masked] (Tomasz Figa)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:30:11 +0200

Hi Tarek,

On 19.05.2014 05:37, Tarek Dakhran wrote:
> EXYNOS5410 is SoC in Samsung's Exynos5 SoC series.
> Add initial support for this SoC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tarek Dakhran <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Vyacheslav Tyrtov <[email-masked]>
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <[email-masked]>

IIRC, the Reviewed-by tag stands only for the version for which it was
posted, except versions with no changes. This one apparently contains
changes compared to previous version.

> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig             |    8 ++++++++
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c            |    1 +
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c           |    4 ++++
>  arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h |   11 ++++++++++-
>  4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> index 1602abc..79a3e85 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> @@ -84,6 +84,14 @@ config SOC_EXYNOS5250
>  	help
>  	  Enable EXYNOS5250 SoC support
>  
> +config SOC_EXYNOS5410
> +	bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5410"
> +	default y
> +	depends on ARCH_EXYNOS5
> +	select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS if PM_RUNTIME
> +	help
> +	  Enable EXYNOS5410 SoC support
> +
>  config SOC_EXYNOS5420
>  	bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5420"
>  	default y
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> index e973ff5..12db6cf 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> @@ -312,6 +312,7 @@ static char const *exynos_dt_compat[] __initconst = {
>  	"samsung,exynos4412",
>  	"samsung,exynos5",
>  	"samsung,exynos5250",
> +	"samsung,exynos5410",

AFAIK you don't need this change now, as you can boot using the generic
Exynos5 compatible string just fine.

>  	"samsung,exynos5420",
>  	"samsung,exynos5440",
>  	NULL
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> index 78002c7..a95213d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,8 @@ static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg_base(void)
>  {
>  	if (soc_is_exynos4210() && samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1)
>  		return S5P_INFORM5;
> +	if (soc_is_exynos5410())
> +		return sysram_ns_base_addr;

This would suggest that instead you need to enable secure firmware
support on your board, by adding respective firmware node to your dts.
Tushar just sent a similar patch series for Exynos5420 [1].

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/31840

>  	return sysram_base_addr;
>  }
>  
> @@ -72,6 +74,8 @@ static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg(int cpu)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>  	if (soc_is_exynos4412())
>  		boot_reg += 4*cpu;
> +	else if (soc_is_exynos5410())
> +		boot_reg += (0x1c);

This offset is typical for secure firmware. The series I mentioned above
also deals with bypassing adding of 4*cpu offset for Exynos5420. Seems
like it might be also necessary for Exynos5410, however I will reply in
that thread with the way I'd see this done.

>  	else if (soc_is_exynos5420())
>  		boot_reg += 4;
>  	return boot_reg;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
> index 5992b8d..21db380 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id;
>  #define EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK	0xFFFE0000
>  
>  #define EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID	0x43520000
> +#define EXYNOS5410_SOC_ID	0xE5410000
>  #define EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID	0xE5420000
>  #define EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID	0xE5440000
>  #define EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK	0xFFFFF000
> @@ -72,6 +73,7 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4210, EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>  IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4212, EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>  IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4412, EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>  IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5250, EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
> +IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5410, EXYNOS5410_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>  IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5420, EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>  IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>  
> @@ -154,6 +156,12 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>  # define soc_is_exynos5250()	0
>  #endif
>  
> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5410)
> +# define soc_is_exynos5410()	is_samsung_exynos5410()
> +#else
> +# define soc_is_exynos5410()	0
> +#endif
> +
>  #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5420)
>  # define soc_is_exynos5420()	is_samsung_exynos5420()
>  #else
> @@ -168,7 +176,8 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>  
>  #define soc_is_exynos4() (soc_is_exynos4210() || soc_is_exynos4212() || \
>  			  soc_is_exynos4412())
> -#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5420())
> +#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5410() || \
> +			  soc_is_exynos5420())

After addressing the comments above, you won't need any changes to this
file anymore (including all the soc_is_*() macros).

Best regards,
Tomasz