From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Chenhui Zhao <chenhui.zhao@freescale.com>
Cc: <b29983@freescale.com>, <b07421@freescale.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tang Yuantian <Yuantian.Tang@freescale.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Powerpc: mpc85xx: refactor the PM operations
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:13:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1438992828.2097.211.camel@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1438917572.2431.0@remotesmtp.freescale.net>
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 11:19 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 13:54 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 12:20 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Scott Wood
> > > > > <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 18:11 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Scott Wood
> > > > > <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 19:32 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Scott Wood
> > > > > > > <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you explain irq_mask()? Why would there
> > > still be
> > > > > IRQs
> > > > > > > > > destined
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > this CPU at this point?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This function just masks irq by setting the
> > > registers in
> > > > > RCPM
> > > > > > > (for
> > > > > > > > > example, RCPM_CPMIMR, RCPM_CPMCIMR). Actually, all
> > > irqs to
> > > > > > > this CPU
> > > > > > > > > have been migrated to other CPUs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So why do we need to set those bits in RCPM? Is it just
> > > > > caution?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Setting these bits can mask interrupts signalled to RCPM
> > > from
> > > > > MPIC
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > means of
> > > > > > > waking up from a lower power state. So, cores will not be
> > > > > waked up
> > > > > > > unexpectedly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why would the MPIC be signalling those interrupts if they've
> > > been
> > > > > > masked at
> > > > > > the MPIC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Scott
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The interrupts to RCPM from MPIC are IRQ, Machine Check, NMI
> > > and
> > > > > Critical interrupts. Some of them didn't be masked in MPIC.
> > > >
> > > > What interrupt could actually happen to a sleeping cpu that this
> > > > protects
> > > > against?
> > > >
> > > > -Scott
> > >
> > > Not sure. Maybe spurious interrupts or hardware exceptions.
> >
> > Spurious interrupts happen due to race conditions. They don't happen
> > because
> > the MPIC is bored and decides to ring a CPU's doorbell and hide in
> > the bushes.
> >
> > If by "hardware exceptions" you mean machine checks, how would such a
> > machine
> > check be generated by a core that is off?
> >
> > > However, setting them make sure dead cpus can not be waked up
> > > unexpectedly.
> >
> > I'm not seeing enough value here to warrant resurrecting the old
> > sleep node
> > stuff.
> >
> > -Scott
>
> My guess maybe not accurate. My point is that electronic parts don't
> always work as expected. Taking preventative measures can make the
> system more robust. In addition, this step is required in deep sleep
> procedure.
The deep sleep part is more convincing -- so MPIC masking is not effective
during deep sleep?
-Scott
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-08 0:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-31 9:20 [PATCH 1/3] Powerpc: mpc85xx: refactor the PM operations b29983
2015-07-31 9:20 ` [PATCH 2/3] PowerPC/mpc85xx: Add hotplug support on E5500 and E500MC cores b29983
2015-08-01 0:14 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-03 11:52 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-03 21:18 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-05 10:39 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-07-31 9:20 ` [PATCH 3/3] PowerPC/mpc85xx: Add hotplug support on E6500 cores b29983
2015-08-01 0:22 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-05 11:08 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-06 3:16 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 4:32 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-06 5:44 ` Scott Wood
2015-07-31 23:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] Powerpc: mpc85xx: refactor the PM operations Scott Wood
2015-08-03 11:32 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-03 20:26 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-05 10:11 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-06 2:57 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 4:20 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-06 5:46 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 5:54 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-06 18:02 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-07 3:19 ` Chenhui Zhao
2015-08-08 0:13 ` Scott Wood [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1438992828.2097.211.camel@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=Yuantian.Tang@freescale.com \
--cc=b07421@freescale.com \
--cc=b29983@freescale.com \
--cc=chenhui.zhao@freescale.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.