[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/5] x86: Add CPU uclass and multi-core support for Minnowboard MAX

[Simon Glass]

Hi Bin,

On 30 April 2015 at 00:16, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 29 Apr 2015 10:26 pm, "Simon Glass" <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> This series adds a new CPU uclass which is intended to be useful on any
>>> architecture. So far it has a very simple interface and a command to show
>>> CPU details.
>>>
>>> This series also introduces multi-core init for x86. It is implemented and
>>> enabled on Minnowboard MAX, a single/dual-core Atom board. The CPU uclass
>>> is
>>> implemented for x86 and the Simple Firmware Interface provides these
>>> details
>>> to the kernel, since ACPI is not yet available.
>>>
>>> With these changes Minnowboard MAX can boot into Linux with both cores
>>> enabled.
>>>
>>> This series is available at u-boot-x86 branch 'cpu-working'.
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> - Rename CONFIG_STACK_SIZE to CONFIG_AP_STACK_SIZE
>>> - Remove sipi_vector_location and sipi_vector_location_size variables
>>> - Remove annoying /* 1ms */ comments
>>> - Rename sipi.S to sipi_vector.S
>>> - Correct 'ap_start32' to 'ap_start'
>>> - Use macros for cr0 bit fields
>>> - Correct style in a multi-line comment
>>> - Use UCODE_HEADER_LEN instead of 48
>>> - Remove unnecessary underscores in MP_FR_BLOCK_APS and MP_FR_NOBLOCK_APS
>>> - Use 'cpu number' instead of 'coreboot cpu number'
>>> - Remove a stray blank line in sipi.h
>>> - Enhance comment for @microcode_lock
>>> - Rename SMM_DEFAULT_BASE/SIZE to AP_DEFAULT_BASE/SIZE and drop smm.h
>>> - Use data32 instead of our own 'o32'
>>> - Move NUM_FIXED_MTRRS to mtrr.h
>>> - Avoid using asmlinkage on ap_init()
>>> - Add msr_clrbits_64() too
>>> - Collect all new MSRs into msr-index.h
>>> - Spell 'BayTrail' like so
>>> - Make set_max_freq() static
>>
>> I did not sort out the secondary CPU init in this series. I will take a
>> look.
>>
>
> Thanks. What about the LAPIC patch? Is it dropped?
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/465854/

Yes, that was a clean-up patch so not required. As you noticed I did
not go far enough so I'll take another crack at it later.

Regards,
Simon