Hi Arun, On 23.05.2014 09:34, Arun Kumar K wrote: > Exynos5800 is an octa core SoC which is based on the 5420 > platform. This patch adds the basic support for it in the > mach-exynos. > > Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 5 +++++ > arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 11 ++++++++++- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > index 4663417..c5423da 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > @@ -99,6 +99,11 @@ config SOC_EXYNOS5440 > help > Enable EXYNOS5440 SoC support > > +config SOC_EXYNOS5800 > + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5800" > + default y > + depends on SOC_EXYNOS5420 > + > endmenu > > config EXYNOS5420_MCPM > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h > index ae5f648..8fbc55b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ > #define EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID 0x43520000 > #define EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID 0xE5420000 > #define EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID 0xE5440000 > +#define EXYNOS5800_SOC_ID 0xE5422000 > #define EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK 0xFFFFF000 > > extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id; > @@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4412, EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID, > EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK) > IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5250, EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) > IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5420, EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) > IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) > +IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5800, EXYNOS5800_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) > > #if defined(CONFIG_CPU_EXYNOS4210) > # define soc_is_exynos4210() is_samsung_exynos4210() > @@ -80,9 +82,16 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, > EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) > # define soc_is_exynos5440() 0 > #endif > > +#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5800) > +# define soc_is_exynos5800() is_samsung_exynos5800() > +#else > +# define soc_is_exynos5800() 0 > +#endif > + > #define soc_is_exynos4() (soc_is_exynos4210() || soc_is_exynos4212() || \ > soc_is_exynos4412()) > -#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5420()) > +#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5420() || \ > + soc_is_exynos5800()) > > void mct_init(void __iomem *base, int irq_g0, int irq_l0, int irq_l1); > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c > index 9c16da2..112bc66 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg(int cpu) > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > if (soc_is_exynos4412()) > boot_reg += 4*cpu; > - else if (soc_is_exynos5420()) > + else if (soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800()) > boot_reg += 4; > return boot_reg; > } >
Isn't this SoC a multi-cluster one? Shouldn't it rather use MCPM SMP ops and so the code being changed here be ignored completely? Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
