summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/arch/arm/common/mcpm_platsmp.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2013-10-29ARM: 7848/1: mcpm: Implement cpu_kill() to synchronise on powerdownDave Martin
CPU hotplug and kexec rely on smp_ops.cpu_kill(), which is supposed to wait for the CPU to park or power down, and perform the last rites (such as disabling clocks etc., where the platform doesn't do this automatically). kexec in particular is unsafe without performing this synchronisation to park secondaries. Without it, the secondaries might not be parked when kexec trashes the kernel. There is no generic way to do this synchronisation, so a new mcpm platform_ops method power_down_finish() is added by this patch. The new method is mandatory. A platform which provides no way to detect when CPUs are parked is likely broken. Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2013-10-29ARM: 7847/1: mcpm: Factor out logical-to-physical CPU translationDave Martin
This patch factors the logical-to-physical CPU translation out of mcpm_boot_secondary(), so that it can be reused elsewhere. Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2013-07-14arm: delete __cpuinit/__CPUINIT usage from all ARM usersPaul Gortmaker
The __cpuinit type of throwaway sections might have made sense some time ago when RAM was more constrained, but now the savings do not offset the cost and complications. For example, the fix in commit 5e427ec2d0 ("x86: Fix bit corruption at CPU resume time") is a good example of the nasty type of bugs that can be created with improper use of the various __init prefixes. After a discussion on LKML[1] it was decided that cpuinit should go the way of devinit and be phased out. Once all the users are gone, we can then finally remove the macros themselves from linux/init.h. Note that some harmless section mismatch warnings may result, since notify_cpu_starting() and cpu_up() are arch independent (kernel/cpu.c) and are flagged as __cpuinit -- so if we remove the __cpuinit from the arch specific callers, we will also get section mismatch warnings. As an intermediate step, we intend to turn the linux/init.h cpuinit related content into no-ops as early as possible, since that will get rid of these warnings. In any case, they are temporary and harmless. This removes all the ARM uses of the __cpuinit macros from C code, and all __CPUINIT from assembly code. It also had two ".previous" section statements that were paired off against __CPUINIT (aka .section ".cpuinit.text") that also get removed here. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/20/589 Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
2013-06-05ARM: 7741/1: mcpm_platsmp.c: remove empty smp_init_cpus methodNicolas Pitre
The smp_init_cpus method in the smp_operations structure is optional and can be omitted entirely. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2013-05-10ARM: 7715/1: MCPM: adapt to GIC changes after upstream mergeNicolas Pitre
Since commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip: gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") it is no longer required nor possible to call gic_secondary_init() from platform code. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2013-04-24ARM: mcpm: provide an interface to set the SMP ops at run timeNicolas Pitre
This is cleaner than exporting the mcpm_smp_ops structure. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Acked-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
2013-04-24ARM: mcpm: generic SMP secondary bringup and hotplug supportNicolas Pitre
Now that the cluster power API is in place, we can use it for SMP secondary bringup and CPU hotplug in a generic fashion. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>