On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Marc Zyngier [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:39 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Marc Zyngier [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote:

quoted

On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote:

quoted

On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote:

(snip)

quoted

So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's
unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision
of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT.

I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of
Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method...

quoted

What about the following patch?

Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...?

Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a
sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little
else we can do than poke both locations and pray.

Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision?

It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has
bug and need to workaround.

platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP
codes. how to handle it.

So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and
running on my board.

Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC?
Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately
the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject.

It can be distinguished by chip id. but there's no code to handle this one.

0x4320 0200 EVT0
0x4321 0210 EVT1
0x4321 0211 EVT2

Apparently, the low 8 bits can be overloaded by the efuse. Which makes
telling EVT1 from EVT2 unreliable.

But at least this is a start. I'll see if I can come up with something
minimal enough to be merged as a fix.

Thanks,

? ? ? ?M.
--
Reality is an implementation detail.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Would something like this work instead ? It seems to work on EVT0 but
I haven't had a chance to test on EVT1.