Subject: [3/4] ARM: EXYNOS: Remove static mapping of SCU SFR

From: [email-masked] (Alim Akhtar)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 10:19:53 +0530

Hi Pankaj,

On 11/07/2016 08:05 AM, pankaj.dubey wrote:
> Hi Alim,
>
> On Friday 04 November 2016 06:56 PM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> Hi Pankaj,
>>
>> On 11/04/2016 09:09 AM, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
>>> Lets remove static mapping of SCU SFR mainly used in CORTEX-A9 SoC
>>> based boards.
>>> Instead use mapping from device tree node of SCU.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <[email-masked]>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c                | 22
>>> ----------------------
>>>    arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h      |  2 --
>>>    arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c               | 18 +++++++++++-------
>>>    arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c                    | 14 +++++++++++---
>>>    arch/arm/mach-exynos/suspend.c               | 15 +++++++++++----
>>>    arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h |  4 ----
>>>    6 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> index 757fc11..fa08ef9 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> @@ -28,15 +28,6 @@
>>>
>>>    #include "common.h"
>>>
>>> -static struct map_desc exynos4_iodesc[] __initdata = {
>>> -    {
>>> -        .virtual    = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_COREPERI_BASE,
>>> -        .pfn        = __phys_to_pfn(EXYNOS4_PA_COREPERI),
>>> -        .length        = SZ_8K,
>>> -        .type        = MT_DEVICE,
>>> -    },
>>> -};
>>> -
>>>    static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>>>        .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE
>>> @@ -99,17 +90,6 @@ static int __init exynos_fdt_map_chipid(unsigned
>>> long node, const char *uname,
>>>        return 1;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> -/*
>>> - * exynos_map_io
>>> - *
>>> - * register the standard cpu IO areas
>>> - */
>>> -static void __init exynos_map_io(void)
>>> -{
>>> -    if (soc_is_exynos4())
>>> -        iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc));
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>    static void __init exynos_init_io(void)
>>>    {
>>>        debug_ll_io_init();
>>> @@ -118,8 +98,6 @@ static void __init exynos_init_io(void)
>>>
>>>        /* detect cpu id and rev. */
>>>        s5p_init_cpu(S5P_VA_CHIPID);
>>> -
>>> -    exynos_map_io();
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    /*
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h
>>> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h
>>> index 5fb0040..0eef407 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,4 @@
>>>
>>>    #define EXYNOS_PA_CHIPID        0x10000000
>>>
>>> -#define EXYNOS4_PA_COREPERI        0x10500000
>>> -
>>>    #endif /* __ASM_ARCH_MAP_H */
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
>>> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
>>> index a5d6841..553d0d9 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
>>> @@ -224,11 +224,6 @@ static void write_pen_release(int val)
>>>        sync_cache_w(&pen_release);
>>>    }
>>>
>>> -static void __iomem *scu_base_addr(void)
>>> -{
>>> -    return (void __iomem *)(S5P_VA_SCU);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock);
>>>
>>>    static void exynos_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
>>> @@ -387,14 +382,23 @@ fail:
>>>
>>>    static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
>>>    {
>>> +    struct device_node *np;
>>> +    void __iomem *scu_base;
>>>        int i;
>>>
>>>        exynos_sysram_init();
>>>
>>>        exynos_set_delayed_reset_assertion(true);
>>>
>>> -    if (read_cpuid_part() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9)
>>> -        scu_enable(scu_base_addr());
>>> +    if (read_cpuid_part() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) {
>>> +        np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,cortex-a9-scu");
>>
>> what if of_find_compatible_node() fails? May be add a error check for
>> the same?
>
> Thanks for review.
>
> You are right of_find_compatible_node() is bound to fail, but only in
> case supplied compatible is missing in DT. In our case this piece of
> code will execute only for Cortex-A9 based SoC (which in case of Exynos
> SoC is applicable only for Exynos4 series) and we will for sure
> providing "arm,cortex-a9-scu" in DT, so there is no chance of failure.
> So I feel extra check on "np" for NULL will add no benefit here.
>
Well I am not entirely convenience here, I still feel it better to have 
those check, lets not assume anything about future, but when I see 
of_find_compatible_node() uses elsewhere in kernel, both kind of uses 
are there (with/without error check).
So, I leave it to you and maintainer to take a call on this, otherwise 
this patch looks good.

Reviewed-by: Alim Akhtar <[email-masked]>

> Thanks,
> Pankaj Dubey