Hi, On 24.4.2018 06:45, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Monday 23 April 2018 11:56 AM, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 23.4.2018 05:53, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday 20 April 2018 07:21 PM, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> This minimal support will be used by Xilinx ZynqMP R5 cpu. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> arch/arm/Kconfig | 6 ++++++ >>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/Makefile | 4 ++++ >>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/config.mk | 3 +++ >>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/cpu.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/start.S | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >>>> 5 files changed, 54 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/Makefile >>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/config.mk >>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/cpu.c >>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/start.S >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>> index b5fbce03667d..b10804f55224 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>> @@ -192,6 +192,10 @@ config CPU_V7M >>>> select THUMB2_KERNEL >>>> select SYS_CACHE_SHIFT_5 >>>> >>>> +config CPU_V7R >>>> + bool >>>> + select SYS_CACHE_SHIFT_6 >>> >>> select HAS_THUMB2 might be a good option? >> >> I didn't enable it because I didn't test it. >> It can be added when someone tests this. >> >>> >>>> + >>>> config CPU_PXA >>>> bool >>>> select SYS_CACHE_SHIFT_5 >>>> @@ -209,6 +213,7 @@ config SYS_CPU >>>> default "arm1176" if CPU_ARM1176 >>>> default "armv7" if CPU_V7 >>>> default "armv7m" if CPU_V7M >>>> + default "armv7r" if CPU_V7R >>>> default "pxa" if CPU_PXA >>>> default "sa1100" if CPU_SA1100 >>>> default "armv8" if ARM64 >>>> @@ -223,6 +228,7 @@ config SYS_ARM_ARCH >>>> default 6 if CPU_ARM1176 >>>> default 7 if CPU_V7 >>>> default 7 if CPU_V7M >>>> + default 7 if CPU_V7R >>>> default 5 if CPU_PXA >>>> default 4 if CPU_SA1100 >>>> default 8 if ARM64 >>> >>> I did a grep of CPU_V7, and you might want to update for CPU_V7R in the >>> following places: >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Makefile b/arch/arm/Makefile >>> index 4fa8b38397..f4bc1f250d 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm/Makefile >>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM1136) =-march=armv5 >>> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM1176) =-march=armv5t >>> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_V7) =$(call cc-option, -march=armv7-a, \ >>> $(call cc-option, -march=armv7, -march=armv5)) >>> +arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_V7R) =-march=armv7-r >> >> I have setup PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS via config.mk >> >> If both options are selected I am getting this compilation warning. >> cc1: warning: switch -mcpu=cortex-r5 conflicts with -march=armv7-r switch > > hmm..that's strange. I guess it should be reported to gcc? Something > similar has been reported for a15 as well[1]. > > But looking at the implementation of armv7 we just included march. may > be we should stick to it?
As I said I have not a problem to add there -march=armv7-r instead of -mcpu=cortex-r5. >> Not sure which one is better or if it is better to have this arch flag >> via this makefile or as platform cppflags via config.mk. >> I choose the second option because it seems to me better if this is in >> subfolder. But not a problem to use different flag and put it to this >> Makefile. >> >> The same style is used for cpu_v7m. > > v7-r is very much close to v7. I would prefer to compare with v7 > implementation than v7-m :) I started with symlink to v7. And I didn't play with MPU. Anyway both ways works for me. >> >>> arch-$(CONFIG_ARM64) =-march=armv8-a >>> >>> # On Tegra systems we must build SPL for the armv4 core on the device >>> @@ -41,6 +42,7 @@ tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_PXA) =-mcpu=xscale >>> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM1136) = >>> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM1176) = >>> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_V7) = >>> +tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_V7R) = >> >> Again as above. I used v7m as pattern and there is also empty tune >> parameter. Is there any good reason to have it empty? >> >>> tune-$(CONFIG_ARM64) = >>> >>> # Evaluate tune cc-option calls now >>> >>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/Makefile b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/Makefile >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 000000000000..3c66976dfa62 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7r/Makefile >>> >>> hmm..do we really need to create a separate folder? IIUC, the main >>> difference between V7 and V7R is MMU vs MPU. IMHO, we should be able to >>> get it using Kconfigs. >> >> I have used V7 for the initial port and then was checking V7M which is >> already there and used it as pattern for writing this patch. >> >> I have debugged V7 and found that I need to disable CONFIG_HAS_VBAR >> that's why I have created new symbol as for V7M. > > We should be able to create a kconfig symbol for that and select > accordingly. Kernel does it the same way. What kernel Kconfig option are you talking about? (I didn't look at Linux running on R5 but it is reasonable step). It is really a question if adding new Kconfig symbol for VBAR is the right thing to do. I would need to add VBAR to every platform which has CPU_V7. >> >> Definitely I am open to hear your suggestion > I just did a couple of quick experiments and able to get v7-r support > along with v7 support. let me know if you would like to take a look at > it. Then Ill pick your patch 1/2 and post the series. I am definitely confident that this will work because I used that in past. Definitely feel free to send it and I will take a look at retest on R5. Thanks, Michal _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
