| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
When starting the Exynos5250 port, a lot of unneeded u-boot code
was imported. This is an attempt to get rid of a lot of unneeded
code before the port is used as a basis for further ARM ports.
There is a lot more that can be done, including cleaning up the
5250's Kconfig file.
Change-Id: I2d88676c436eea4b21bcb62f40018af9fabb3016
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/3642
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
|
|
It turns out that the exynos5-common code previously imported from
u-boot is not common code at all but very specific to the 5250 and
not compatible with the 5450. Hence, unify the directories exynos5250
and exynos5-common. We will try to factor out common code while
progressing with the 5450 port.
Change-Id: Iab595e66fcd01eda8365c96fb8bef896f7602f03
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/3641
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
|
|
This moves the prototype for power_enable_hw_thermal_trip() to
a generic location so it can be used by generalized thermal
management code. The implementation will still be CPU-specific.
Change-Id: Iae449cb8c72c8441dedaf65b73db9898b4730cef
Signed-off-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/3105
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
|
|
This moves highly board-specific code out from the Exynos5250
power_init() into Snow's romstage.c. There's no reason the CPU-
specific code should care about which PMIC we are using and
which bus it is on.
Change-Id: I52313177395519cddcab11225fc23d5e50c4c4e3
Signed-off-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/3034
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
|
|
OK, this is tl;dr. But I need to write this in hopes we make
sure we don't put code like this into coreboot. Ever.
Our excuse in this case is that it was imported, not obviously wrong,
and easily changed. It made sense to get it in, make it work, then
do a cleanup pass, because changing everything up front is almost
impossible to debug.
The exynos code has bunch of base register values, e.g.
These are base addresses of things that look like a memory-mapped
struct. To get these to a pointer, they created the following macro,
which creates an inline function.
static inline unsigned int samsung_get_base_##device(void) \
{ \
return cpu_is_exynos5() ? EXYNOS5_##base : 0; \
}
And then invoke it 31 times in a .h file, e.g.:
SAMSUNG_BASE(clock, CLOCK_BASE)
to create 31 functions.
And then use it:
struct exynos5_clock *clk =
(struct exynos5_clock *)samsung_get_base_clock();
OK, what's wrong with this? It's easier to ask what's right with it. Answer: nothing.
I have a long list of what's wrong, and I may leave some things out,
but here goes:
1. the "function" can return a NULL if we're not on exynos5. Most uses of the code
don't check the return value.
2. And why would this function be running, if we're not on an exynos5? Why compile it in?
3. Note the cast everywhere a samsung_get_base_xxx is used.
The function returns an untyped variable, requiring the *user* to get two
things right: the cast, and the function invocation. One can replace that _clock(); with
_power(); in the code above, and they will be referencing the wrong registers, and
they'll never get an error!
We have a C compiler; use it to type data.
4. You're generating 31 functions using cpp each and every time the file is included.
The C compiler has to parse these each time. It's not at all like a simple cpp
macro which is only generated on use.
5. You can't tags or etags this code
6. In fact, any kind of analysis tool will be unable to do anything with this cpp magic.
That's only a partial list.
So what's the right way to do it? Just make typed constants, viz:
Or, since I expect people will want the lower case function syntax, I've left
it that way:
Now we've got something that is efficient, and we don't even need to protect with
any more.
Hence this change. We've got something that is type checked, does not require users to
cast on each use, will catch simple programming errors, can be analyzed with standard tools,
and builds faster.
So if we make a mistake:
struct exynos5_clock *clk =
samsung_get_base_adc();
We'll see it:
src/cpu/samsung/exynos5250/clock.c: In function 'get_pll_clk':
src/cpu/samsung/exynos5250/clock.c:183:3: error: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Werror]
which we would not have seen before.
As a minor benefit, it shaves most of a second off the compilation.
Change-Id: Ie67bc4bc038a8dd1837b977d07332d7d7fd6be1f
Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2582
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
|
|
s5p-common mostly contained duplicate files, drop the whole directory
and merge the few pieces that we are using into exynos5-common.
Change-Id: I5f18e8a6d2379d719ab6bbbf817fe15bda70d17f
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2405
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
|
|
Remove duplicated / testing code and share more driver for bootblock, romstage
and ramstage.
The __PRE_RAM__ is now also defined in bootblock build stage, since bootblock is
executed before RAM is initialized.
Change-Id: I4f5469b1545631eee1cf9f2f5df93cbe3a58268b
Signed-off-by: Hung-Te Lin <hungte@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2282
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
|
|
"SPL" from U-Boot is deprecated by bootblock in coreboot/arm, so we don't need
it anymore.
Change-Id: Id16877075d0b870839a10160073ad70777a2af0a
Signed-off-by: Hung-Te Lin <hungte@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2297
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
|
|
Turns out initializing power rails is necessary, even for getting
serial output.
Change-Id: I3042c1001ae43b1e793ee6cb90bb79b8db0f8fd1
Signed-off-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2126
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
|
|
... to fit into the naming convention
Change-Id: I4a7d81c4d6674d001fc831df863bd2343f6c636f
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2020
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
|
|
When we need i2c for this cpu we will use the coreboot
smbus code.
Change-Id: I4ba4cc9ae10e5ca830d621ee9c8d9f7bd2129e2f
Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2019
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
|
|
The max include file is in src/drivers/power.
Change-Id: I2e663b472cade17fc50edbb449c0e54fd4a991eb
Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2017
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
|
|
Samsung SoC files, including Exynos5 (a Cortex-A15
implementation). Since this is an SoC we'll forego the x86-style
{north,south}bridge and cpu distinction. We may try to split some
stuff out before the final version if prudent.
Change-Id: Ie068e9dc3dd836c83d90e282b10d5202e7a4ba9b
Signed-off-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/2005
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
|
