09.01.2015 19:57, Stephen Warren пишет:
> 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.
>
Sure, currently I placed "resettable" variable in IRAM reset handler area for
that reason. As I wrote before, I'll give patch more polish and send after.
--
Dmitry
--
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