Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix SMP_ON_UP for non ARM ltd. implementations

From: Will Deacon
Date: Sun Jan 30 2011 - 11:28:24 EST


Hi Russell,

On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 12:20 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:04:12PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > @@ -393,20 +393,25 @@ ENDPROC(__turn_mmu_on)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP
> > __fixup_smp:
> > mov r4, #0x00070000
> > - orr r3, r4, #0xff000000 @ mask 0xff070000
> > - orr r4, r4, #0x41000000 @ val 0x41070000
> > - and r0, r9, r3
> > - teq r0, r4 @ ARM CPU and ARMv6/v7?
> > + and r0, r9, r4
> > + teq r0, r4 @ ARMv6/v7?
> > bne __fixup_smp_on_up @ no, assume UP
> >
> > + orr r3, r4, #0xff000000 @ mask 0xff070000
> > orr r3, r3, #0x0000ff00
> > orr r3, r3, #0x000000f0 @ mask 0xff07fff0
> > + orr r4, r4, #0x41000000 @ val 0x41070000
> > orr r4, r4, #0x0000b000
> > orr r4, r4, #0x00000020 @ val 0x4107b020
> > and r0, r9, r3
> > teq r0, r4 @ ARM 11MPCore?
> > moveq pc, lr @ yes, assume SMP
> >
> > + mov r4, #0x00070000
> > + and r0, r9, #0x000f0000
> > + teq r0, r4 @ ARMv6?
> > + beq __fixup_smp_on_up @ yes, assume UP
> > +
>
> Wouldn't it be better to check for CPUID presence first, then ARM11MPcore,
> and lastly preserve of MPIDR-flagged extensions?
>

Yes, the v6 catch-all at the end is pretty horrible.


> Will - can you check whether the below is correct?
>
> arch/arm/kernel/head.S | 17 +++++++----------
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S
> index 17a97b5..f6b31c4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S
> @@ -390,19 +390,16 @@ ENDPROC(__turn_mmu_on)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP
> __fixup_smp:
> - mov r4, #0x00070000
> - orr r3, r4, #0xff000000 @ mask 0xff070000
> - orr r4, r4, #0x41000000 @ val 0x41070000
> - and r0, r9, r3
> - teq r0, r4 @ ARM CPU and ARMv6/v7?
> + and r3, r9, #0x000f0000 @ architecture version
> + teq r3, #0x000f00000 @ CPU ID supported?


You've got an extra 0x0 on the end of that constant.


> bne __fixup_smp_on_up @ no, assume UP
>
> - orr r3, r3, #0x0000ff00
> - orr r3, r3, #0x000000f0 @ mask 0xff07fff0
> + bic r3, r9, #0x00ff0000
> + bic r3, r3, #0x0000000f @ mask 0xff00fff0
> + mov r4, #0x41000000
> orr r4, r4, #0x0000b000
> - orr r4, r4, #0x00000020 @ val 0x4107b020
> - and r0, r9, r3
> - teq r0, r4 @ ARM 11MPCore?
> + orr r4, r4, #0x00000020 @ val 0x4100b020
> + teq r3, r4 @ ARM 11MPCore?
> moveq pc, lr @ yes, assume SMP
>

Yup, that looks correct to me. 11MPCore has 0xf for the architecture
field so we'll end up identifying it correctly here.


> mrc p15, 0, r0, c0, c0, 5 @ read MPIDR


The code following this does:

tst r0, #1 << 31
movne pc, lr @ bit 31 => SMP

As an optimisation, we could also check that bit 30 is zero so that
we patch out the SMP stuff for single-core A5/A9/A15. Up to you.

With the typo fixed:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>

Will


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/