HI Maxime，
How about the new V5 patch?
Fan
Thanks
On 18 October 2013 00:37, Fan Rong wrote:
> This patch adds SMP support for the Allwinner A20 SoC. This SoC uses an IP
> to, among other things, handle the CPU-related configuration, like the power
> clamp, the boot address of the secondary C
Ripard
wrote:
> Hi Fan,
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:22:44AM +0800, cinifr wrote:
>> > You still haven't said why you don't want to use smp_init_cpus there.
>> I find that of_funcation liking of_find_matching_node and of_iomap can
>> not run well in sm
>
> Please use sun7i here as well.
>
Ok, it will be modified by next patch.
>> +early_initcall(sunxi_init_cpuconfig_map);
>
> You still haven't said why you don't want to use smp_init_cpus there.
I find that of_funcation liking of_find_matching_node and of_iomap can
not run well in smp_init_cpus.
> In which case this kernel patch needs instead to speak the bootloader
> wakeup protocol instead of speaking to the h/w directly like you've done
> here, right?
>
> Or is it possible for the bootloader to set these things up and then put
> the CPU back to sleep such that it both retains any settin
Yes, I get it, it is cause by using ./scripts/Lindent. I have to
remail patch aggin. :)
On 22 September 2013 21:00, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 08:21:26PM +0800, Fan Rong wrote:
>> +.section ".text.head", "ax" ENTRY(sun7i_secondary_startup)
>> +msr cpsr_fsxc,
>> +#0x
Thanks. I have modify my patch as you said.
It is in attachments. Maybe I remail the new patch?
0001-Add-smp-support-for-Allwinner-A20-sunxi-7i.patch
Description: Binary data
On 13/09/13 14:09, cinifr wrote:
>>> I urge you to read the ARM ARM, and specifically the section dedicated
>>> to trapping access to CP15 operations. If you do, you'll quickly notice
>>> that you *cannot* trap accesses to the timer subsystem.
>>>
&
>
> This doesn't change the fact that using the physical timer/counter in a
> VM is (or can be) horribly expensive, and should be avoided at all cost.
>
I will remove suport phy timer counter patch and try to fix it in
bootloader. I agree that is elegant only vct is be used.in kernel
now.
--
To un
On 13 September 2013 19:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:46:42PM +0100, cinifr wrote:
>> >You seem to be suggesting a kernel change (using CNTPCT), but also
>> >bootloader changes (setting CNTHCTL.PL1PCTEN) to make this possible at
>> >all.
> I urge you to read the ARM ARM, and specifically the section dedicated
> to trapping access to CP15 operations. If you do, you'll quickly notice
> that you *cannot* trap accesses to the timer subsystem.
>
I read it again. The ARMv7 manual said "Is accessible from Non-secure
PL1 modes only when CN
On 13 September 2013 00:39, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 12/09/13 17:07, cinifr wrote:
>>> This cannot be a compile-time option as above in a multiplatform build.
>>> Other paltforms (e.g. KVM guests) *must* use the virtual counters to get
>>> any semblance of a con
On 12 September 2013 23:44, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:57 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
>> > + interrupts = <1 13 0x308>,
>> > +<1 14 0x308>,
>> > +<1 11 0x308>,
>> > +
Thanks, but I am tring a solution in running time.
On 12 September 2013 22:33, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:24:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 07:51:26AM +0100, Fan Rong wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/cloc
>You seem to be suggesting a kernel change (using CNTPCT), but also
>bootloader changes (setting CNTHCTL.PL1PCTEN) to make this possible at
>all. If the bootloader needs to be modified, why can it not be modified
>to set CNTVOFF (or to boot the kernel in Hyp where it can set it
>itself)?
I think k
Thanks for you advice, you are right, I will reupdate the patch. :)
On 12 September 2013 22:26, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 07:51:24AM +0100, Fan Rong wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Fan Rong
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Makefile |2 +
>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/headsmp.S | 12
>This cannot be a compile-time option as above in a multiplatform build.
>Other paltforms (e.g. KVM guests) *must* use the virtual counters to get
>any semblance of a consistent view of time.
Yes I accept compile-time option is not perfect in my pre email,
But,Why Ohter paltforms *must* use the vi
16 matches
Mail list logo
