Hi Andre,
Series looks good so far! I'm trying to move my testing build over to it
now; I will report back when I've been running on it for a little bit.
On 7/21/23 07:45, Andre Przywara wrote:
diff --git a/board/sunxi/board.c b/board/sunxi/board.c
index 7ac50c4ae8c..2db4a2d73ca 100644
--- a/
ULL" conditional into sunxi_cpu_set_power().
- Removed unnecessary H6 special-case, since H6 is actually ARM64.
- Renamed SUNXI_CPUX_BASE to SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE, to mirror expected changes in
Andre's v2 of the R528 series (we decided against using a new name for this
block).
- Removed sunxi_cpuc
ere are no functional changes here.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 103 +---
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/ps
its associated header file existed only to support
PSCI code, so also delete them altogether.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 57
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/cpucfg.h | 67
2 files changed, 23 insertions
same logic.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 66 +++--
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c
index 69fa3f3c2e..27c
This patch adds the necessary code to make nonsec booting and PSCI
secondary core management functional on the R528/T113.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Maksim Kiselev
Tested-by: Kevin Amadiva
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/Kconfig | 3 ++-
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 47
On 8/25/23 00:20, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
Hi Chen-Yu,
IIRC the GIC manual says that the secure bit is set or cleared to select
which bank of registers is accessed.
Which secure bit are we talking about here? Do we mean the *configured*
secure bit (SCR.NS, what the code is attempting to clear) or
On 8/26/23 04:22, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Hi Marc!
The GIC definitely has the NS bit routed to it. Otherwise, the secure
configuration would just be an utter joke. Just try it.
Thank you for your response. I'd like to revisit my prior point about
the distinction between the NS bit and AxPROT[1]
Hi Heiko and Simon,
Thought I'd follow-up to keep this discussion going. The main thing I
would like to decide first (as it lets me start relying on it in boot
scripts) would be the UBI access syntax:
=> ls ubi 0:rootfs /boot
=> ls ubi 0:2 /boot
Do those look good? Should I be trying to mimi
On 9/27/23 10:32, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:34:20 -0700
Sam Edwards wrote:
Hi Sam,
Hi Andre,
Mmh, I didn't find a better solution than keeping this in.
I'll keep it if your R528 v2 doesn't find some other way to address it.
+#endif
+#if defined(
On 9/27/23 10:34, Andre Przywara wrote:
In the majority of cases, there are no changes to the text section
introduced by this patch. In the R40 case, there's a small change where
the compiler adds a NULL check onto the result of the `(void *)cpucfg +
SUN8I_R40_PWR_CLAMP(cpu)` computation, which w
On 9/27/23 10:31, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:34:19 -0700
Sam Edwards wrote:
Hi Sam,
Hi Andre,
@@ -103,10 +116,13 @@ static void __secure clamp_set(u32 *clamp)
static void __secure sunxi_cpu_set_entry(int __always_unused cpu, void *entry)
{
- /* secondary
6 is actually ARM64.
- Renamed SUNXI_CPUX_BASE to SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE, to mirror expected changes in
Andre's v2 of the R528 series (we decided against using a new name for this
block).
- Removed sunxi_cpucfg_reg struct, and stopped using the PRCM struct in psci.c.
Happy Saturday all,
Sam
ere are no functional changes here.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 103 +---
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/ps
same logic.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 66 +++--
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c
index 69fa3f3c2e..27c
its associated header file existed only to support
PSCI code, so also delete them altogether.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 57
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/cpucfg.h | 67
2 files changed, 23 insertions
This patch adds the necessary code to make nonsec booting and PSCI
secondary core management functional on the R528/T113.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Maksim Kiselev
Tested-by: Kevin Amadiva
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 47 -
arch/arm/mach
arse UBI index/volume numbers with `dectoul` instead of `hextoul`, to match
Linux's behavior of treating these numbers as decimal.
- Do not treat a valid decimal number as a volume name, even if the volume ID
doesn't exist, to match Linux's behavior of always treating decimal number
This makes static UBI volumes readable as block devices, however
no mechanism for selecting these volume devices yet exists.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi-uclass.c | 111 +++
1 file changed, 111 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi
nt for the BLK devices that represent the static volumes.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
cmd/ubi.c| 11 ++
drivers/mtd/ubi/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi-uclass.c | 74
include/dm/uclass-id.h | 1 +
include/ubi_uboot.h
s a plain
"Bad device specification" and does not suggest using ubifsmount.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
disk/part.c | 14 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/disk/part.c b/disk/part.c
index 72241b7b23..a4b6d265da 100644
--- a/
---
disk/part.c | 55 +
1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
diff --git a/disk/part.c b/disk/part.c
index a4b6d265da..7c995f583c 100644
--- a/disk/part.c
+++ b/disk/part.c
@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
+#include
+#in
e Przywara
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Cheers,
Sam
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/pmic_bus.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/pmic_bus.h
b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/pmic_bus.h
index 3ccfe138f3..5ab9b2809f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm
: Clang's and other gaslike assemblers lack this
implicit alignment. Whether or not this is considered a bug in
those assemblers, it is better to ask directly for what we want.
[1]: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12931
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/include/asm/link
The start-of-image marker symbol is `__image_copy_start`; by
searching for `_image_copy_start` instead, this check can
accidentally match `_image_copy_start_ofs`.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
Makefile | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 22bdc30109..20785860f7 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -2109,7 +2109,8 @@ System.map: u-boot
checkarmreloc: u-boot
@RELOC
card these.
Since the build process does not appear to make use of the dynamic
segment at all, it would be more sensible to suppress it entirely.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 20785860f7..
On 5/15/23 03:48, Andre Przywara wrote:
Ahoy, Andre!
> How did you find this? Just by accident? I was wondering if we could
> check the tree automatically for those accidents.
I found it both automatically and by accident. :)
My cross-compiler of choice is Clang (as I don't have to
rebuild/re
On 5/14/23 09:28, Tom Rini wrote:
Hi Tom!
How extensively have you tested this change?
I tested it in building for the arm/sunxi target. U-Boot does not build
at all (on Clang+LLD) in its current state:
ld.lld: error: section type mismatch for .gnu.version_r
>>> :(.gnu.version_r): SHT_GNU_
Hi Andre! Thank you for your efforts on this patchset; I've been
test-driving it a bit myself this week.
On 12/5/22 17:45, Andre Przywara wrote:
+#define SUNXI_RTC_BASE 0x0700
+#define SUNXI_R_CPUCFG_BASE0x07000400
+#define SUNXI_PRCM_BASE
On 12/5/22 17:45, Andre Przywara wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c
index 3763ec3d2e4..1cda5e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c
@@ -148,6 +148,10 @@ static int gpio_init(void)
sunxi_gpio_set_cfgpin(SU
On 5/16/23 15:08, Andre Przywara wrote:
This whole memory map is somewhat of a legacy. Apart from a few
addresses for the SPL needs we shouldn't have those defines at all.
Some symbols are needed because there are other macros using them,
although these then are eventually unused.
I have some pat
Buffers created through DEFINE_(CACHE_)ALIGN_BUFFER are actually
pointers to the real underlying buffer. Using sizeof(...) is
not appropriate in this case.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b
ill=0xff, which is not supported in
llvm-objcopy
- llvm-objcopy also doesn't appear to speak S-Record; the u-boot.srec
target has to be deleted manually
- llvm-objcopy gets upset at some of the EFI code, since the EFI linker
scripts preserve dynamic sections that llvm-objcopy doesn&
The start-of-image marker symbol is `__image_copy_start`; by
searching for `_image_copy_start` instead, this check can
accidentally match `_image_copy_start_ofs`.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini
---
Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a
: Clang's and other gaslike assemblers lack this
implicit alignment. Whether or not this is considered a bug in
those assemblers, it is better to ask directly for what we want.
[1]: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12931
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/include/asm/link
These symbols need to survive the IR-level dead function elimination
pass, since nothing at the IR level is referencing them (calls to these
are inserted later, at codegen time).
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/lib/Makefile | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm
This is sometimes used by LLVM's code generator.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.c | 5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.c b/arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.c
index f7029918d4..059ca07265 100644
--- a/arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.c
These are sometimes used by LLVM's code-generator, when it can guarantee
that the memory buffer being passed is aligned on a (4- or 8-byte)
boundary. They can safely be aliases to the unaligned versions.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.c | 12
1
These are often a consequence of --pie, but they aren't actually
used in the runtime relocation code. It is better to discard them
than to aggregate them, because they tend to be of different types,
and this upsets some linkers (e.g. LLD).
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/u-boo
This is not proper: A .text section is SHT_PROGBITS,
while the .dynamic section is SHT_DYNAMIC. Attempting to
combine them like this creates a section type mismatch.
It does seem that GNU ld does not complain, but LLVM's lld
considers this an error.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Cc: Hei
LLD tends to put these at the very beginning of the file, only
for the .text 0x0 directive to end up going backward and
overlapping them, creating an error.
Since they don't appear to be used at runtime, just discard them.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/lib/elf_arm_efi.lds | 3 +
27;s best to discard what we don't need.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 11 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds
index 8cdf08a730..bd4650bd86 100644
--- a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot
were marking meant the markers could
end up with an unintended section inserted within that region.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Cc: Albert ARIBAUD
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/spl_data.c| 4 +-
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot-spl.lds| 26 +++
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boo
On 5/20/23 22:26, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
Hello Sam,
Hi Heinrich! Good to hear from you.
I guess the documentation and the CI testing would also have to be adjusted.
Ah, yeah, those are going to be big things for me to look at when this
series starts to mature out of the RFC phase. CI i
On 12/5/22 17:45, Andre Przywara wrote:
From: Samuel Holland
Since the D1 CCU binding is defined, we can add support for its
gates/resets, following the pattern of the existing drivers.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara
Acked-by: Sean Anderson
Hi Andre,
So far so
On 5/22/23 02:10, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
.dynamic should be aligned. Structure Elf64_Dyn requires at least 8 byte
alignment.
As best as I can tell, linkers (certainly lld[1], apparently also GNU ld
judging by its default linker scripts) themselves set the proper word
alignm
Hi Ilias,
On 5/22/23 01:00, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
The reason we end up with both hash and gnu.hash is because the hash
style is set to 'both'. Should we perhaps use (and strip) only one of
them?
If we do keep one, it should probably be .hash -- see commit b02bfc4dfc.
I admit I'm completely
Hi Ilias,
On 5/22/23 00:52, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
I can help clean up the arm architecture even further. I was toying
with the idea of having page-aligned sections and eventually map
u-boot with proper permissions per section. Right now (at least for
the majority of arm platforms) we are doi
Hi Tom,
On 5/22/23 09:30, Tom Rini wrote:
I think objcopy is a bit of a stretch at this
point and it's not clear from the above if you're also making use of the
assembler.
I agree, since getting llvm-objcopy to play nice with this currently
requires that I make a handful of small hack edits t
Hi, Peng Fan! Thank you for your review. :)
On 5/22/23 19:44, Peng Fan wrote:
This looks correct to me. BTW: do you met any issues during test?
I do not think I understand the question.
Are you asking, "Did you send this patch because the current MMC driver
was having problems on a real devi
Hi folks,
On 7/7/23 09:52, Yifan Zhao wrote:
diff --git a/fs/erofs/internal.h b/fs/erofs/internal.h
index 4af7c91560..433a3c6c1e 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/internal.h
+++ b/fs/erofs/internal.h
+/* make sure that any user of the erofs headers has at least 64bit off_t type
*/
+extern int erofs_assert_
is found to be held low, in an attempt to force the bus back to
an idle state. This patch only resets the controller in case something
else had previously upset it, and (in principle) results in no
externally-observable change in behavior.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
drive
(ret) {
debug("%s: Failed to probe (err=%d)\n", __func__, ret);
Love these sorts of clean-ups. I don't have a sunxi with SATA so I can't
test it, but I've been running my target on this patch in some form or
another for several weeks, and the code looks good, so:
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Thanks greatly for the speedy turnaround on this patch!
On 7/25/23 22:56, Yifan Zhao wrote:
Fixes: 3a21e92fc255 ("fs/erofs: Introduce new features including ztailpacking,
fragments and dedupe")
Signed-off-by: Yifan Zhao
Tested-by: Sam Edwards
I've had countless successful boots of a T113-s3 using this DRAM
controller code, so:
On 7/21/23 07:46, Andre Przywara wrote:
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
Tested-by: Sam Edwards
er.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Thanks,
Sam
n drop the current code
from board.c, which was doing that job before.
This allows us to remove the MACPWR Kconfig definition and the respective
values from the defconfigs.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Thanks,
Sam
and
we can abstract the new D1 pinctrl more easily.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Sam Edwards
Thanks,
Sam
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Sam Edwards
Thanks,
Sam
controller).
This paves the way to introduce a first user of this generation.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Sam Edwards
Thanks,
Sam
ide this
in our generic sunxi-u-boot.dtsi, to let U-Boot pick up this watchdog,
so that the generic reset driver will work.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
Reviewed-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Sam Edwards
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/sunxi-u-boot.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/sunxi-u-boot.dtsi
index af419c7e5
On 7/21/23 07:45, Andre Przywara wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
index fc80fe50b14..c6115112688 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
@@ -748,6 +748,28 @@ static const struc
"ubi" sound, or should I be conceding that to
UBIFS and using a new type name for static UBI volumes?
4) Does my choose_blksz_for_volume() function make sense, or should I always be
using a preferred block size (like 512) if possible?
Cheers,
Sam
Sam Edwards (4):
mtd: ubi: registe
nt for the BLK devices that represent the static volumes.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
cmd/ubi.c| 11 ++
drivers/mtd/ubi/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi-uclass.c | 74
include/dm/uclass-id.h | 1 +
include/ubi_uboot.h
This makes static UBI volumes readable as block devices, however
no mechanism for selecting these volume devices yet exists.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi-uclass.c | 110 +++
1 file changed, 110 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi
s a plain
"Bad device specification" and does not suggest using ubifsmount.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
disk/part.c | 14 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/disk/part.c b/disk/part.c
index 0a03b8213d..1ad8277b65 100644
--- a/
---
disk/part.c | 56 +
1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
diff --git a/disk/part.c b/disk/part.c
index 1ad8277b65..85eb51429a 100644
--- a/disk/part.c
+++ b/disk/part.c
@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
+#include
+#in
hanks,
Sam
Sam Edwards (3):
sunxi: psci: clean away preprocessor macros
sunxi: psci: refactor register access to separate functions
sunxi: psci: implement PSCI on R528
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 185 +---
arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 2 +
include/co
ere are no functional changes here.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 94 ++---
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c
index e1d3638b5c..7809b07
same logic.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 66 +++--
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c
index 7809b074f8..94120e7526 100644
--- a/arch
This patch adds the necessary code to make nonsec booting and PSCI
secondary core management functional on the R528/T113.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Maksim Kiselev
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 47 -
arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 2
Hi Andre,
On 8/14/23 10:37, Andre Przywara wrote:
So I think we can get rid of this:
- GEN_H6 never compiles this code here, as both H6 and H616 are arm64.
Easy!
- We can define SUNXI_PRCM_BASE for NCAT2, I believe Samuel once
mentioned that the D1/T113 does have such a block, actually.
Wi
On 8/14/23 08:06, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Sam,
many many thanks for sending this, I especially like your clean up around
the #ifdef's!
The patches looks good on the first glance (apart from some regression in
patch 3/3), but I will reply to them individually.
Cheers,
Andre
Thanks for your a
On 8/14/23 15:05, Andre Przywara wrote:
Yes, I will add this to the header file, either defined as 0, or to its
actual address.
Gotcha; my v2 will also assume you've taken care of merging these guys:
+#define SUNXI_CPUX_BASE0x0901
+#define SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE
interrupt which will crash U-Boot.
- Wait for the recommended 100ms after PERST# is deasserted.
I sent this patch while debugging a crash involving PCIe, but these
are unrelated improvements. I do not believe that this patch fixes any
real-world bug.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
drivers/pci
On 8/14/23 08:16, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Sam,
This patch adds the necessary code to make nonsec booting and PSCI
secondary core management functional on the R528/T113.
Unfortunately this patch breaks the build on older 32-bit SoCs, as
SUNXI_CPUX_BASE is not defined there. That's a typical p
On 8/15/23 15:59, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Sam,
Hi Andre,
So that's a bit more nasty indeed. I don't even know if R_CPUCFG really
makes sense here, as the _R_ term typically refers to the management
processor, which the D1/R528 don't have. Or at least the always-on power
domain, but then agai
d using the PRCM struct in psci.c.
Cheers,
Sam
Sam Edwards (5):
sunxi: psci: clean away preprocessor macros
sunxi: psci: refactor register access to separate functions
sunxi: psci: stop modeling register layout with C structs
sunxi: psci: implement PSCI on R528
HACK: sunxi: psci: be co
ere are no functional changes here.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 102 +---
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c
index e1d3638b5c..7804e09
same logic.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 66 +++--
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c
index 7804e0933b..e2845f21ab 100644
--- a/arch
its associated header file existed only to support
PSCI code, so also delete them altogether.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 57
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/cpucfg.h | 67
2 files changed, 23 insertions
This patch adds the necessary code to make nonsec booting and PSCI
secondary core management functional on the R528/T113.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Maksim Kiselev
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 48 -
arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 2
This is a hack for reviewer QoL. It is not being submitted for mainline
inclusion.
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c | 12
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/psci.c
index b4ce4f6def..27bac291d5 100644
--- a/arch/
lled in slot 3 of a Turing Pi 2
cluster board.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230428223500.23337-1-jim2101...@gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
drivers/pci/pcie_brcmstb.c | 18 +-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie_brcmstb.c b/
On 8/18/23 07:57, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:34:17 -0700
Sam Edwards wrote:
Hi Sam,
Likewise Andre,
-static void __secure sunxi_set_entry_address(void *entry)
+static void __secure sunxi_cpu_set_entry(int __always_unused cpu, void *entry)
So what is the reasoning behind
I can identify what's changing. If it's easy enough, I'd like to adjust
my patch so that the optimizer does produce the same output. (Keep in
mind I'm on Clang, though. If Clang already gives the same output for
both, I'll just report back to use that when comparing.)
S
On 8/18/23 10:40, Sam Edwards wrote:
On 8/18/23 07:11, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Andre,
The resulting object file is different (8 byte larger,
even), so it's hard to prove
I'm no stranger to reading object code. Since the output should be
identical in principle, I'll spend
On 8/18/23 07:27, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Andre,
So instead of trying to derive some pattern from where there is none, I'd
rather do: config SUNXI_CPU_HOTPLUG_ADDRESS
hex
default 0x01c000bc if MACH_SUN8I_R40
But the hotplug flag register is at 0x01c000b8 for R40?
..
Hi Joshua,
I just updated my own modules to this version of the patch and all
continues to be well.
On 12/14/23 16:46, Joshua Riek wrote:
Signed-off-by: Joshua Riek
Cc: Sam Edwards
Tested-by: Sam Edwards
Thanks for the continued efforts, my friend!
Happy Friday,
Sam
On 6/27/24 09:06, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 13:56:31 -0600
Sam Edwards wrote:
Hi,
John asked me have a look at this.
Hi Andre, it's good to hear from you again,
I'd first like to make sure you're aware that the date on this patch is
June *2023,* not
nitrd= via
'bootefi' from a btrfs partition. The EFI stub entered an infinite
loop of zero-length reads while trying to read the initrd, and the
boot process stalled indefinitely.
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
---
fs/btrfs/btrfs.c | 15 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deleti
- which in
practice means it reads the whole file in one exact-filesize chunk.
So, to answer your questions: "either/both depending on platform."
(The bug in the U-Boot implementation doubtlessly affects more than just
EFI; I only happened to discover it while trying to use EFI.)
Signed
causes confusion among downstream users as to
whether the SPI image needs to be distributed.
Fixes: 153ac950a599 ("board: rockchip: Add the Turing RK1 SoM")
Suggested-by: Florian Klink
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Acked-by: Joshua Riek
Reviewed-by: Jonas Karlman
---
Changes v1->v2 (b
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:40 AM John Watts wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:52:14AM -0600, Sam Edwards wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > This patch was developed against (and used very heavily on) the Turing
> > Pi 2, which has an Allwinner T113-s3 SoC. Likely it s
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:29 AM Florian Klink wrote:
>
> On 23-12-14 18:46:47, Joshua Riek wrote:
> >The Turing RK1 is a Rockchip RK3588 based SoM from Turing Machines.
> >
> >Specifications:
> >
> >Rockchip RK3588 SoC
> >4x ARM Cortex-A76, 4x ARM Cortex-A55
> >8/16/32GB memory LPDDR4x
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:26 PM John Watts wrote:
>
> This series is my current working and tested setup for booting from
> SPI NAND chips on the Allwinner T113.
>
> I have included the following patches from others. I may have modified
> them to work with the latest mainline:
>
> https://lore.ke
causes confusion among downstream users as to
whether the SPI image needs to be distributed.
Fixes: 153ac950a599 ("board: rockchip: Add the Turing RK1 SoM")
Suggested-by: Florian Klink
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Acked-by: Joshua Riek
---
configs/turing-rk1-rk3588_defconfig | 6
causes confusion among downstream users as to
whether the SPI image needs to be distributed.
Fixes: 153ac950a599 ("board: rockchip: Add the Turing RK1 SoM")
Suggested-by: Florian Klink
Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards
Acked-by: Joshua Riek
Reviewed-by: Jonas Karlman
---
Changes v1->v2 (b
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
