[PATCH v1 3/5] arm: mach-k3: enable support for falcon mode

[Anshul Dalal]

On Sat Oct 11, 2025 at 3:26 PM IST, Anshul Dalal wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Fri Oct 10, 2025 at 9:35 PM IST, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 06:48:25PM +0530, Anshul Dalal wrote:
>>
>>> With CONFIG_SPL_OS_BOOT enabled, U-Boot checks for the return value of
>>> spl_start_uboot to select between falcon or the regular boot flow. With
>>> a return value of 0 implying falcon mode.
>>> 
>>> This patch overrides the weak definition form common/spl/spl.c to allow
>>> K3 devices to use falcon mode with SPL_OS_BOOT enabled.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Anshul Dalal <anshuld at ti.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c | 7 +++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c
>>> index 5483ac9906c..41c96cbd4c5 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c
>>> @@ -425,3 +425,10 @@ release_proc_ctrl:
>>>  	proc_ops->proc_release(ti_sci, PROC_ID_MCU_R5FSS0_CORE1);
>>>  	return ret;
>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OS_BOOT)
>>> +int spl_start_uboot(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I've seen this in other parts of the series too, sorry.
>> CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OS_BOOT) doesn't make sense, it should be
>
> Is that because OS_BOOT by itself is meaningless and
> CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OS_BOOT) would always fall to checking for
> CONFIG_SPL_OS_BOOT? I mostly stuck with CONFIG_IS_ENABLED to avoid the
> extra three characters when using IS_ENABLED instead.
>

Apparently there are quite a few instances of CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OS_BOOT)
in the source even before this patch series. I'll change it to
IS_ENABLED for this series in a v2 but for the existing instances, I
think it's better to follow up with a clean up patch once all other
remaining falcon series are merged.

>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_OS_BOOT) or just a regular #ifdef. Also for this
>> example please add a comment to the function explaining why it's always
>> enabling falcon mode.
>
> Will add an explantory comment in the next revision.
>
> Regards,
> Anshul