On 01/09/2015 03:29 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:51:35AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 02:37:09PM +0200, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:57:43AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
Old Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:00:16AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 12/22/2014 10:27 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
22.12.2014 19:17, Stephen Warren пишет:
On 12/21/2014 03:52 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
Commit 7232398abc6a ("ARM: tegra: Convert PMC to a driver") changed
tegra_resume()
location storing from late to early and as result broke suspend on tegra20.
PMC scratch register 41 was used by tegra lp1 suspend core code for storing
physical memory address of common resume function and in the same time used by
tegra20 cpuidle driver for storing cpu1 "resettable" status, so it implied
strict order of scratch register use. Fix it by using scratch 40 instead of 41
for tegra_resume() location store.
You likely can't simply change the PMC scratch register usage arbitrarily;
specific registers are designated for specific purposes, and code outside the
Linux kernel (bootloaders, LP0 resume code, secure monitors, etc.) may depend on
those specific values being in those registers. Without significant research,
I'd suggest not changing the PMC scratch register usage.
Sure, that's why I asked to verify if scratch register 40 is in use in the
comment after commit message.
Sorry, I didn't notice that.
I've checked that u-boot doesn't use it (since
upstream kernel doesn't care about any other bootloader), but no idea about
secure monitor. It's definitely safer to avoid changing scratch regs usage, I
thought that proposed solution would be best from the pure code point of view.
So, I'm considering your answer as a rejection of the patch (please, let me know
if I'm wrong) and will prepare another one. Btw, it would be nice to have
scratch registers usage publicly documented somewhere (on "Tegra Public
Application Notes" webpage for example), if it's possible, of course.
At this stage in Tegra20 development, I think it'd be best to avoid changing
any scratch register usage if at all possible.
Sorry, I had completely missed this discussion. When looking at the code
it doesn't look like this particular "resettable" status needs to be
stored in a PMC scratch register. It can't be stored in RAM because that
goes into self-refresh as part of LP1, but how about just putting it
into IRAM? That stays on in both LP1 and LP2, so should be suitable for
this use-case. It would make the code slightly more complex but using a
single scratch register for multiple purposes sounds brittle and easy to
break (as evidenced by the offending commit).
Otherwise it would seem that PMC_SCRATCH40 is only used to store EMC
configuration data across LP0 suspend/resume, so I wouldn't think it'd
cause problems if we used that instead of PMC_SCRATCH41 to store the
"resettable" state.
No. Usually the scratch registers for EMC config data are setup once by the
bootloader and never touched by the kernel after that. So I would not
recommend reusing those registers for different purposes.
Right, I misread the code in the downstream kernel. Though it's not the
bootloader that does it (at least on Tegra20), but some early code in
the kernel.
IRAM sounds like a good candidate still. Or do you know of anything that
would exclude IRAM as storage location for this data?
No. I can't think of a reason this flag could not be in IRAM.
The only thing you might want to watch out for is whether something else
is using IRAM. For example, our product SW stacks use the AVP as a media
co-processor and that runs at least some of its code from IRAM. To
support something similar, you'd need to make sure to save/restore the
IRAM content when using it for other purposes rather than just blindly
over-writing it (and of course synchronize with any driver for the AVP
execution, to ensure it was shut down first and brought back up last
after any power saving event). Of course, we don't actually support
loading code onto the AVP upstream at the moment, so perhaps we can
defer handling that for now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html