Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64: Initial Realtek RTD1295 enablement
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: 2017-09-05 07:18:50
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Andreas Färber [off-list ref] wrote:
Am 14.05.2017 um 04:24 schrieb Andreas Färber:quoted
This mini-series adds initial support for the Realtek RTD1295 SoC and the Zidoo X9S TV box. v3 changes #address-cells, #size-cells and ranges. With these patches CPU0 can be booted with earlycon. PSCI doesn't work despite present in the vendor device tree; as enable-method it instead used a custom "rtk-spin-table" that I sadly have no source code of.Synology has now published source code for RTD1293/1296. This has allowed me to narrow the RTD1295 CPU1..3 issue down to two changes in arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c:smp_spin_table_cpu_prepare(): 1) writel_relaxed() instead of writeq_relaxed() 2) ioremap() instead of ioremap_cache() Without those changes it hangs in earlycon after this line: [ 0.043674] Mountpoint-cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 3, 32768 bytes) The size difference sounds easy enough - we could introduce an optional cpu-release-size property to handle this or derive a "spin-table-32bit" enable-method to that effect. The second one appears to be caused by PROT_NORMAL vs. PROT_DEVICE_nGnRE. Is there any simple check we could do on cpu-release-addr to choose which MT to use? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit?id=113954c6463d1d80a206e91627ae49711f8b47cd Any other ideas?
I think we had a similar problem before and concluded that something
requiring a write into an MMIO register is simply not a spin-table
implementation but something else.
Is this simply using a copy of the spin-table code to trigger the actual
booting of the secondary CPU? Can you identify the MMIO address?
Arnd