On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 01:19:24PM +1000, gerg@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch is specifically meant to be applied to stable tree linux-3.10.y.
Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches
instead?
Your descriptions here:
> IO coherency should not be used on the Armada 370 SoC, due to all
> the necessary pre-requisites for reliable operation not being met
> (such as write allocate cache policy, shareable pages, SMP bit set).
>
> Commit e55355453600a33bb5ca4f71f2d7214875f3b061 ("ARM: mvebu: disable
> I/O coherency on non-SMP situations on Armada 370/375/38x/XP") was
> intended to disable IO coherency for the Armada 370. However it only
> disables the CPU side IO coherency. The mbus driver (drivers/bus/
> mvebu-mbus.c) still passes the IO coherency attributes through the
> dram chip selects and onto driver memory window attributes. It
> does this based on looking directly into the device tree (looking
> for "marvell,coherency-fabric").
>
> To fix we pass the coherency availability information (whether enabled
> or not) to the mbus driver at init time. This is done in the same way
> that it was done for mainline kernels in commit
> 5686a1e5aa436c49187a60052d5885fb1f541ce6 ("bus: mvebu: pass the
> coherency availability information at init time").
>
> Having the IO coherency enabled on the Armada 370 SoC causes rare
> unreliable system behavior. It is not easy to consistently reproduce
> problems caused by this. Best method I have seen is heavy network
> load resulting in kernel dumps due to corrupted memory.
I don't understand the issue here, I really don't want to not take
patches that are not in Linus's tree, sorry.
greg k-h
--
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