Re: next-20240814: bcm2711-rpi-4-b boot failed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/14/24 09:19, Stefan Wahren wrote:
Hi Naresh,

Am 14.08.24 um 17:26 schrieb Naresh Kamboju:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 20:54, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The arm64 kernel booting on bcm2711-rpi-4-b boot failed with today's Linux
next-20240814 tag. The boot failed with half boot log [1]

Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx>

  GOOD: next-20240813
  BAD:  next-20240814

The first investigation show the following to changes and I have reverted the
following two commits and the boot test is back to pass [2].

$ git log --oneline  next-20240813..next-20240814
arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/
   6e7b99d720da6 ARM: dts: bcm271x: add missing properties to local_intc
   eb81f43c901ff ARM: dts: bcm2837/bcm2712: adjust local intc node names

Anders bisected down to first bad commit as,
    6e7b99d720da ("ARM: dts: bcm271x: add missing properties to local_intc")
thank you for the report and sorry about that mess. I don't why i was
under the impression they were harmless DT properties. I look into this,
so a revert is the proper solution for now.

Without the 'interrupt-controller' of_irq_init() would not be picking up the interrupt-controller@7cd00000 node and it would not attempt to register the driver. We can see that the GIC is still the primary interrupt controller for that system:

[    0.000000] Root IRQ handler: gic_handle_irq

my suspicion here is that irq-bcm2836.c still wants to own the inter processor operations and calls set_smp_ipi_range() which then replaces what the GIC has installed, thus diverting all interrupts towards itself, when it should not, and that won't work as there is no coordination with the ARM GIC driver. Stefan do you know how the VPU decides between one interrupt controller versus the other, assuming there is even a choice offered to users? Is it via adding/removing the 'interrupt-controller' property, or is it via the more conventional 'status' property?

FWIW, I did changes back in the days to support the 7211 sister chip of 2711:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191015185919.GA26464@bogus/T/

Dropping the patch for now, thanks!
--
Florian





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux