? 2015?06?07? 11:43, Doug Anderson ??: > Caesar, > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Caesar Wang <wxt at rock-chips.com> wrote: >> @@ -150,13 +159,15 @@ static int __cpuinit rockchip_boot_secondary(unsigned >> int cpu, >> * sram_base_addr + 4: 0xdeadbeaf >> * sram_base_addr + 8: start address for pc >> * */ >> - udelay(10); >> + udelay(20); >> >> I increased the 'udelay(20)' or 'udelay(50)' in rockchip_boot_secondary(). >> Set#2 also can repro this issue over 22600 cycles with testing scripts. >> (about 1 hours) >> >> log: >> ================= 226 ============ >> [ 4069.134419] CPU1: shutdown >> [ 4069.164431] CPU2: shutdown >> [ 4069.204475] CPU3: shutdown >> ...... >> [ 4072.454453] CPU1: shutdown >> [ 4072.504436] CPU2: shutdown >> [ 4072.554426] CPU3: shutdown >> [ 4072.577827] CPU1: Booted secondary processor >> [ 4072.582611] CPU2: Booted secondary processor >> [ 4072.587426] CPU3: Booted secondary processor >> <hang> >> >> The set #4 will be better work. > OK, I'm OK with this, but I'd like to get Heiko's opinion. > > Also: > * Just for kicks, does mdelay(1) work? I know that's 100x more than OK, it should delay more time. the mdelay(1) can be work over 50000 cycles, so that should be work. Perhaps, can we use 'usleep_range(500, 1000)' to work. Heiko, do you agree with it? > udelay(10), but previously we were actually looping waiting for the > power domain, right? ...so maybe the old code used to introduce a > pretty big delay. > > * Does anyone from the chip design team have any idea why patch set #4 > works but patch set #2 doesn't? I know it's Sunday morning in China > right now, but maybe you could ask Monday? > > > Thanks! > > -Doug > > > -- Thanks, - Caesar
