[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/arm: midway: implement SMP
On 11/18/2013 02:27 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
xen/arch/arm/platforms/midway.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/midway.c b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/midway.c
index 399056b..3b9fcfc 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/midway.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/midway.c
@@ -47,6 +47,27 @@ static uint32_t midway_quirks(void)
return PLATFORM_QUIRK_DOM0_MAPPING_11;
}
+static int __init midway_cpu_up(int cpu)
Wouldn't it make more sense to do this initialization in smp_init()
instead of here per CPU? init_secondary() is fixed and thus we will not
write different values for each core.
I guess it does not really matter, I was just wondering whether this
would be a saner approach (and I think your first version was this way,
right?)
Thanks,
Andre.
P.S. BTW: Any reason we instantiate cpu_up() for all platforms where
they are actually NOPs? I think the platform code only calls a function
if it is non-NULL, so we could just skip all of this: cpu_up() {return
0;} definition.
+{
+ void __iomem *pens;
+
+ pens = ioremap_nocache(0, PAGE_SIZE);
+ if ( !pens )
+ {
+ dprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "Unable to map midway pens MMIO\n");
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ printk("Set cpu pen %u to %"PRIpaddr" (%p)\n",
+ cpu, __pa(init_secondary), init_secondary);
+
+ writel(__pa(init_secondary), pens + 0x40 + cpu * 0x10);
+
+ iounmap(pens);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static const char * const midway_dt_compat[] __initconst =
{
"calxeda,ecx-2000",
@@ -57,6 +78,7 @@ PLATFORM_START(midway, "CALXEDA MIDWAY")
.compatible = midway_dt_compat,
.reset = midway_reset,
.quirks = midway_quirks,
+ .cpu_up = midway_cpu_up,
PLATFORM_END
/*
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
