[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426014457.GG29990@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:44:57 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, jilai wang <jilaiw@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 6/8] firmware: qcom: scm: Use atomic SCM for cold boot
On 04/25, Andy Gross wrote:
> This patch changes the cold_set_boot_addr function to use atomic SCM
> calls. This removes the need for memory allocation and instead places
> all arguments in registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c
> index 0d2a3f8..419df4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c
> @@ -294,34 +294,39 @@ out:
> (n & 0xf))
>
> /**
> - * qcom_scm_call_atomic1() - Send an atomic SCM command with one argument
> + * qcom_scm_call_atomic() - Send an atomic SCM command with one argument
Update doc to say 1 or 2 arguments now? I guess we get slightly
worse code because we force a load into the second argument
register even if it isn't used.
Also, is there a patch to change scm-32 to use dma allocations
for the buffer, or did I miss it?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists