Hi Michal, On Tuesday 24 April 2018 05:54 PM, Michal Simek wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I did not mean this patch does not work. It definitely works. I am trying to tell that with some kconfig changes we should be able to re-use armv7 folder instead of creating new folder. Apologies if my reply has communicated wrongly. Will post an RFC series for R5 support. Thanks and regards, Lokesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
