[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131029001858.GE4763@kartoffel>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:18:59 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] ARM: tegra: split setting of CPU reset handler
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:28:36AM +0000, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Not all Tegra devices can set the CPU reset handler in the same way.
> In particular, devices using a TrustZone secure monitor cannot set the
> reset handler directly and need to do it through a firmware operation.
>
> This patch separates the act of setting the reset handler from its
> preparation, so the former can be implemented in a different way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.c
> index fd0bbf8..e282395 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.c
> @@ -33,26 +33,18 @@
>
> static bool is_enabled;
>
> -static void __init tegra_cpu_reset_handler_enable(void)
> +static void __init tegra_cpu_reset_handler_set(const u32 reset_address)
> {
> - void __iomem *iram_base = IO_ADDRESS(TEGRA_IRAM_RESET_BASE);
> void __iomem *evp_cpu_reset =
> IO_ADDRESS(TEGRA_EXCEPTION_VECTORS_BASE + 0x100);
> void __iomem *sb_ctrl = IO_ADDRESS(TEGRA_SB_BASE);
> u32 reg;
>
> - BUG_ON(is_enabled);
> - BUG_ON(tegra_cpu_reset_handler_size > TEGRA_IRAM_RESET_HANDLER_SIZE);
> -
> - memcpy(iram_base, (void *)__tegra_cpu_reset_handler_start,
> - tegra_cpu_reset_handler_size);
> -
> /*
> * NOTE: This must be the one and only write to the EVP CPU reset
> * vector in the entire system.
> */
> - writel(TEGRA_IRAM_RESET_BASE + tegra_cpu_reset_handler_offset,
> - evp_cpu_reset);
> + writel(reset_address, evp_cpu_reset);
> wmb();
> reg = readl(evp_cpu_reset);
>
> @@ -66,6 +58,21 @@ static void __init tegra_cpu_reset_handler_enable(void)
> writel(reg, sb_ctrl);
> wmb();
> }
> +}
> +
> +static void __init tegra_cpu_reset_handler_enable(void)
> +{
> + void __iomem *iram_base = IO_ADDRESS(TEGRA_IRAM_RESET_BASE);
> + const u32 reset_address = TEGRA_IRAM_RESET_BASE +
> + tegra_cpu_reset_handler_offset;
> +
> + BUG_ON(is_enabled);
> + BUG_ON(tegra_cpu_reset_handler_size > TEGRA_IRAM_RESET_HANDLER_SIZE);
> +
> + memcpy(iram_base, (void *)__tegra_cpu_reset_handler_start,
> + tegra_cpu_reset_handler_size);
A memcpy to iomem seems suspect. Should this be memcpy_toio, or is the __iomem
annotation misleading?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists