lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/27] ARM: EXYNOS: Add Exynos3250 SoC ID
Hi,

On 04/11/2014 10:46 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:37:12PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> This patch add Exynos3250's SoC ID. Exynos 3250 is System-On-Chip(SoC) that
>> is based on the 32-bit RISC processor for Smartphone. Exynos3250 uses Cortex-A7
>> dual cores and has a target speed of 1.0GHz.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 1 +
>> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 10 ++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
>> index fc8bf18..6da8a68 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
>> @@ -11,6 +11,17 @@ if ARCH_EXYNOS
>>
>> menu "SAMSUNG EXYNOS SoCs Support"
>>
>> +config ARCH_EXYNOS3
>> + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS3"
>> + select ARM_AMBA
>> + select CLKSRC_OF
>> + select HAVE_ARM_SCU if SMP
>> + select HAVE_SMP
>> + select PINCTRL
>> + select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS if PM_RUNTIME
>> + help
>> + Samsung EXYNOS3 SoCs based systems
>> +
>> config ARCH_EXYNOS4
>> bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS4"
>> default y
>> @@ -41,6 +52,17 @@ config ARCH_EXYNOS5
>>
>> comment "EXYNOS SoCs"
>>
>> +config SOC_EXYNOS3250
>> + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS3250"
>> + default y
>> + depends on ARCH_EXYNOS3
>> + select ARCH_HAS_BANDGAP
>> + select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND if PM
>> + select PINCTRL_EXYNOS
>> + select SAMSUNG_DMADEV
>> + help
>> + Enable EXYNOS3250 CPU support
>> +
>> config CPU_EXYNOS4210
>> bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS4210"
>> default y
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> index b32a907..b134868 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> @@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void)
>> }
>>
>> static char const *exynos_dt_compat[] __initconst = {
>> + "samsung,exynos3250",
>
> Please consider samsung,exynos3 instead, so you don't have to update this table
> for every SoC. We've talked about this before..

This patchset included only exynos3250.dtsi without exynos3.dtsi.
So, I added only "samsung,exynos3250" compatible name.

Do you prefer to add SoC version as following?
+ "samsung,exynos3",
+ "samsung,exynos3250",

or ?
+ "samsung,exynos3",

>
>> "samsung,exynos4",
>> "samsung,exynos4210",
>> "samsung,exynos4212",
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>> index 5992b8d..3d808f6b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>> @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id;
>> #define S5PV210_CPU_ID 0x43110000
>> #define S5PV210_CPU_MASK 0xFFFFF000
>>
>> +#define EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID 0xE3472000
>> +#define EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK 0xFFFFF000
>> +
>> #define EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID 0x43210000
>> #define EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID 0x43220000
>> #define EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID 0xE4412200
>> @@ -68,6 +71,7 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5p6440, S5P6440_CPU_ID, S5P64XX_CPU_MASK)
>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5p6450, S5P6450_CPU_ID, S5P64XX_CPU_MASK)
>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5pc100, S5PC100_CPU_ID, S5PC100_CPU_MASK)
>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5pv210, S5PV210_CPU_ID, S5PV210_CPU_MASK)
>> +IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos3250, EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK)
>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4210, EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4212, EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4412, EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>> @@ -126,6 +130,12 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>> # define soc_is_s5pv210() 0
>> #endif
>>
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS3250)
>> +# define soc_is_exynos3250() is_samsung_exynos3250()
>> +#else
>> +# define soc_is_exynos3250() 0
>> +#endif
>
> In general, I think we have too much code littered with soc_is_<foo>() going
> on, so please try to avoid adding more for this SoC. Especially in cases where
> you just want to bail out of certain features where we might already have
> function pointers to control if a function is called or not, such as the
> firmware interfaces.
>

Do you prefer dt helper function such as following function instead of new soc_is_xx() ?
- of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250")

If you are OK, I'll use of_machine_is_compatible() instead of soc_is_xx().

Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-11 08:41    [W:0.350 / U:1.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site