All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
	"arm@kernel.org" <arm@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/3] ARM: soc: exynos: Drivers for v4.9
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:48:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161003074825.GA2724@kozik-lap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMgSu=bfVwWYkEG0+eDKBxh_zqSM0uxFAq3Y3X-O0vLGKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:25:07PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:02:40PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 6:39:46 PM CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> > Samsung drivers/soc update for v4.9:
> >> > 1. Allow compile testing of exynos-mct clocksource driver on ARM64.
> >> > 2. Document Exynos5433 PMU compatible (already used by clkout driver and more
> >> >    will be coming soon).
> >>
> >> Pulled into next/drivers, thanks
> >>
> >> Just for my understanding: why do we need the exynos-mct driver on ARM64
> >> but not the delay-timer portion of it?
> >
> > I think we want all of it but Doug's optimization 3252a646aa2c
> > ("clocksource: exynos_mct: Only use 32-bits where possible") is not
> > ARM64 friendly. One way of dealing with it would be to prepare two
> > versions of exynos4_read_current_timer(). One reading only lower 32-bit
> > value for ARMv7 and second (slow) reading lower and upper for ARMv8.
> >
> >>
> >> Is there an advantage in using MCT over the architected timer on these
> >> chips? If so, should we also have a way to use it as the delay timer?
> >
> > No, there is no real advantage... except that the SoC has some
> > interesting "characteristics"... The timers are tightly coupled. Very
> > tightly. I spent a lot of time and failed to boot my ARMv8 board without
> > some MCT magic.
> 
> What kind of magic is that?

Most notably: the arch timer starts when MCT forward running counter
starts. Without kicking MCT, the arch timer seems to be frozen.

> I can understand that needing the MCT for
> some system-level timer functionality might be true (wakeups, etc),
> but for system timesource avoiding the MMIO timer and using the arch
> ones is a substantial performance improvement for gettimeofday() and
> friends.
> 
> There was extensive discussion last year over using arch timers on
> 5420/5422, and it fizzled out with vague comments about something not
> working right between A15/A7 on b.L. hardware. I'm presuming whatever
> implementation details of that SoC has since been fixed on later chips
> (including v8). Any chance you can confirm? It'd be very nice to leave
> MCT behind on v8 as a system time source.

Unfortunately, I cannot confirm this, at least on Exynos5433 (ARMv8). I
played with arch and MCT timers on it and failed to get the
arch-timer-only setup working. I did not have access to newer Exynos
designs (Exynos 7) so I do not know how it works there.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: krzk@kernel.org (Krzysztof Kozlowski)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL 1/3] ARM: soc: exynos: Drivers for v4.9
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:48:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161003074825.GA2724@kozik-lap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMgSu=bfVwWYkEG0+eDKBxh_zqSM0uxFAq3Y3X-O0vLGKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:25:07PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:02:40PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 6:39:46 PM CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> > Samsung drivers/soc update for v4.9:
> >> > 1. Allow compile testing of exynos-mct clocksource driver on ARM64.
> >> > 2. Document Exynos5433 PMU compatible (already used by clkout driver and more
> >> >    will be coming soon).
> >>
> >> Pulled into next/drivers, thanks
> >>
> >> Just for my understanding: why do we need the exynos-mct driver on ARM64
> >> but not the delay-timer portion of it?
> >
> > I think we want all of it but Doug's optimization 3252a646aa2c
> > ("clocksource: exynos_mct: Only use 32-bits where possible") is not
> > ARM64 friendly. One way of dealing with it would be to prepare two
> > versions of exynos4_read_current_timer(). One reading only lower 32-bit
> > value for ARMv7 and second (slow) reading lower and upper for ARMv8.
> >
> >>
> >> Is there an advantage in using MCT over the architected timer on these
> >> chips? If so, should we also have a way to use it as the delay timer?
> >
> > No, there is no real advantage... except that the SoC has some
> > interesting "characteristics"... The timers are tightly coupled. Very
> > tightly. I spent a lot of time and failed to boot my ARMv8 board without
> > some MCT magic.
> 
> What kind of magic is that?

Most notably: the arch timer starts when MCT forward running counter
starts. Without kicking MCT, the arch timer seems to be frozen.

> I can understand that needing the MCT for
> some system-level timer functionality might be true (wakeups, etc),
> but for system timesource avoiding the MMIO timer and using the arch
> ones is a substantial performance improvement for gettimeofday() and
> friends.
> 
> There was extensive discussion last year over using arch timers on
> 5420/5422, and it fizzled out with vague comments about something not
> working right between A15/A7 on b.L. hardware. I'm presuming whatever
> implementation details of that SoC has since been fixed on later chips
> (including v8). Any chance you can confirm? It'd be very nice to leave
> MCT behind on v8 as a system time source.

Unfortunately, I cannot confirm this, at least on Exynos5433 (ARMv8). I
played with arch and MCT timers on it and failed to get the
arch-timer-only setup working. I did not have access to newer Exynos
designs (Exynos 7) so I do not know how it works there.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-03  7:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-18 16:39 [GIT PULL 0/3] ARM: exynos: Second round of stuff for v4.9 Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-18 16:39 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-18 16:39 ` [GIT PULL 1/3] ARM: soc: exynos: Drivers " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-18 16:39   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-19 15:02   ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-19 15:02     ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-19 15:53     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-19 15:53       ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-10-03  0:25       ` Olof Johansson
2016-10-03  0:25         ` Olof Johansson
2016-10-03  7:48         ` Krzysztof Kozlowski [this message]
2016-10-03  7:48           ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-10-03 12:19           ` Kukjin Kim
2016-10-03 12:19             ` Kukjin Kim
2016-10-11  0:46             ` Kukjin Kim
2016-10-11  0:46               ` Kukjin Kim
2016-10-11  0:58               ` Kukjin Kim
2016-10-11  0:58                 ` Kukjin Kim
2016-09-18 16:39 ` [GIT PULL 2/3] ARM: dts: exynos: DT for v4.9, second round Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-18 16:39   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-19 15:46   ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-19 15:46     ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-18 16:39 ` [GIT PULL 3/3] ARM: dts: exynos: pinctrl cleanup for v4.9 Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-18 16:39   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-09-19 15:48   ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-19 15:48     ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-19 15:48     ` Arnd Bergmann

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=20161003074825.GA2724@kozik-lap \
    --to=krzk@kernel.org \
    --cc=arm@kernel.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=javier@osg.samsung.com \
    --cc=k.kozlowski@samsung.com \
    --cc=kgene@kernel.org \
    --cc=khilman@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    /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.