coreboot-kgpe-d16/src/soc/samsung/exynos5420/power.c

76 lines
1.4 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
/* Power setup code for EXYNOS5 */
#include <device/mmio.h>
#include <halt.h>
#include <soc/dmc.h>
#include <soc/power.h>
#include <soc/setup.h>
/* Set the PS-Hold drive value */
static void ps_hold_setup(void)
{
/* Set PS-Hold high */
setbits32(&exynos_power->ps_hold_ctrl,
exynos5: Refactor crazy old U-Boot base address macros away All this samsung_get_base_address_of_device_with_a_really_long_name() boilerplate makes my eyes bleed... I think there are so much cleaner ways to do this. Unfortunately changing this ends up touching nearly every Exynos5 file, but I hope you agree that it's worth it (and the sooner we get it over with, the better... I can't bring myself to make another device fit into that ugly scheme). This also removes the redundant EXYNOS5 base address definitions from the 5420 directory when there are EXYNOS5420 ones, to avoid complete confusion. The new scheme tries to use EXYNOS5 for base addresses and exynos5 for types that are common between the two processors, and EXYNOS5420/exynos5420 for things that have changes (although I probably didn't catch all differences). Change-Id: I87e58434490ed55a9bbe743af1f9bf2520dec13f Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/167579 Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: ron minnich <rminnich@chromium.org> (cherry picked from commit 66c87693352c248eec029c1ce83fb295059e6b5b) Signed-off-by: Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6632 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan@alterapraxis.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
2013-08-29 23:17:36 +02:00
POWER_PS_HOLD_CONTROL_DATA_HIGH);
}
void power_reset(void)
{
/* Clear inform1 so there's no change we think we've got a wake reset */
exynos5: Refactor crazy old U-Boot base address macros away All this samsung_get_base_address_of_device_with_a_really_long_name() boilerplate makes my eyes bleed... I think there are so much cleaner ways to do this. Unfortunately changing this ends up touching nearly every Exynos5 file, but I hope you agree that it's worth it (and the sooner we get it over with, the better... I can't bring myself to make another device fit into that ugly scheme). This also removes the redundant EXYNOS5 base address definitions from the 5420 directory when there are EXYNOS5420 ones, to avoid complete confusion. The new scheme tries to use EXYNOS5 for base addresses and exynos5 for types that are common between the two processors, and EXYNOS5420/exynos5420 for things that have changes (although I probably didn't catch all differences). Change-Id: I87e58434490ed55a9bbe743af1f9bf2520dec13f Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/167579 Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: ron minnich <rminnich@chromium.org> (cherry picked from commit 66c87693352c248eec029c1ce83fb295059e6b5b) Signed-off-by: Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6632 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan@alterapraxis.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
2013-08-29 23:17:36 +02:00
exynos_power->inform1 = 0;
setbits32(&exynos_power->sw_reset, 1);
}
/* This function never returns */
void power_shutdown(void)
{
clrbits32(&exynos_power->ps_hold_ctrl,
exynos5: Refactor crazy old U-Boot base address macros away All this samsung_get_base_address_of_device_with_a_really_long_name() boilerplate makes my eyes bleed... I think there are so much cleaner ways to do this. Unfortunately changing this ends up touching nearly every Exynos5 file, but I hope you agree that it's worth it (and the sooner we get it over with, the better... I can't bring myself to make another device fit into that ugly scheme). This also removes the redundant EXYNOS5 base address definitions from the 5420 directory when there are EXYNOS5420 ones, to avoid complete confusion. The new scheme tries to use EXYNOS5 for base addresses and exynos5 for types that are common between the two processors, and EXYNOS5420/exynos5420 for things that have changes (although I probably didn't catch all differences). Change-Id: I87e58434490ed55a9bbe743af1f9bf2520dec13f Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/167579 Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: ron minnich <rminnich@chromium.org> (cherry picked from commit 66c87693352c248eec029c1ce83fb295059e6b5b) Signed-off-by: Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6632 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan@alterapraxis.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
2013-08-29 23:17:36 +02:00
POWER_PS_HOLD_CONTROL_DATA_HIGH);
halt();
}
void power_enable_dp_phy(void)
{
setbits32(&exynos_power->dptx_phy_control, EXYNOS_DP_PHY_ENABLE);
}
void power_enable_hw_thermal_trip(void)
{
/* Enable HW thermal trip */
setbits32(&exynos_power->ps_hold_ctrl, POWER_ENABLE_HW_TRIP);
}
uint32_t power_read_reset_status(void)
{
exynos5: Refactor crazy old U-Boot base address macros away All this samsung_get_base_address_of_device_with_a_really_long_name() boilerplate makes my eyes bleed... I think there are so much cleaner ways to do this. Unfortunately changing this ends up touching nearly every Exynos5 file, but I hope you agree that it's worth it (and the sooner we get it over with, the better... I can't bring myself to make another device fit into that ugly scheme). This also removes the redundant EXYNOS5 base address definitions from the 5420 directory when there are EXYNOS5420 ones, to avoid complete confusion. The new scheme tries to use EXYNOS5 for base addresses and exynos5 for types that are common between the two processors, and EXYNOS5420/exynos5420 for things that have changes (although I probably didn't catch all differences). Change-Id: I87e58434490ed55a9bbe743af1f9bf2520dec13f Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/167579 Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: ron minnich <rminnich@chromium.org> (cherry picked from commit 66c87693352c248eec029c1ce83fb295059e6b5b) Signed-off-by: Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6632 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan@alterapraxis.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
2013-08-29 23:17:36 +02:00
return exynos_power->inform1;
}
void power_exit_wakeup(void)
{
typedef void (*resume_func)(void);
exynos5: Refactor crazy old U-Boot base address macros away All this samsung_get_base_address_of_device_with_a_really_long_name() boilerplate makes my eyes bleed... I think there are so much cleaner ways to do this. Unfortunately changing this ends up touching nearly every Exynos5 file, but I hope you agree that it's worth it (and the sooner we get it over with, the better... I can't bring myself to make another device fit into that ugly scheme). This also removes the redundant EXYNOS5 base address definitions from the 5420 directory when there are EXYNOS5420 ones, to avoid complete confusion. The new scheme tries to use EXYNOS5 for base addresses and exynos5 for types that are common between the two processors, and EXYNOS5420/exynos5420 for things that have changes (although I probably didn't catch all differences). Change-Id: I87e58434490ed55a9bbe743af1f9bf2520dec13f Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/167579 Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: ron minnich <rminnich@chromium.org> (cherry picked from commit 66c87693352c248eec029c1ce83fb295059e6b5b) Signed-off-by: Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6632 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan@alterapraxis.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
2013-08-29 23:17:36 +02:00
((resume_func)exynos_power->inform0)();
}
int power_init(void)
{
ps_hold_setup();
return 0;
}
void power_enable_xclkout(void)
{
/* use xxti for xclk out */
clrsetbits32(&exynos_power->pmu_debug, PMU_DEBUG_CLKOUT_SEL_MASK,
exynos5: Refactor crazy old U-Boot base address macros away All this samsung_get_base_address_of_device_with_a_really_long_name() boilerplate makes my eyes bleed... I think there are so much cleaner ways to do this. Unfortunately changing this ends up touching nearly every Exynos5 file, but I hope you agree that it's worth it (and the sooner we get it over with, the better... I can't bring myself to make another device fit into that ugly scheme). This also removes the redundant EXYNOS5 base address definitions from the 5420 directory when there are EXYNOS5420 ones, to avoid complete confusion. The new scheme tries to use EXYNOS5 for base addresses and exynos5 for types that are common between the two processors, and EXYNOS5420/exynos5420 for things that have changes (although I probably didn't catch all differences). Change-Id: I87e58434490ed55a9bbe743af1f9bf2520dec13f Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/167579 Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: ron minnich <rminnich@chromium.org> (cherry picked from commit 66c87693352c248eec029c1ce83fb295059e6b5b) Signed-off-by: Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6632 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan@alterapraxis.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
2013-08-29 23:17:36 +02:00
PMU_DEBUG_XXTI);
}
void power_release_uart_retention(void)
{
write32(&exynos_power->padret_uart_opt, 1 << 28);
}