From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: SCPI regressions in v4.15-rc1 on Amlogic SoCs.
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 02:24:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171204022406.GA6870@e107533-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOi56cXCBAJO6iOONTENqGdm9kE+t4fGYgTENupzkRgHjJfykw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:21:13PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> There's been a pretty major regression in v4.15-rc1 compared to v4.15
> in SCPI causing warning splats on amlogic SoCs when cpufreq starts up
> and tries to set the OPP for the first time[1].
>
Looks like some issue with firmware we are hitting. I assume CPUFreq was
never initialised on this platform before(i.e. v4.14) and these changes
are changing the probe path, so it could be that change causing the
regression.
> I ran out of time to narrow it down further since there have been
> quite a few changes since v4.14, but simply reverting
> drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c to its v4.14 state gets things working
> again.
>
Makes sense.
> This has been happening for awhile, and we should've caught it sooner
> in kernelCI.org, however this warning splat still allows the kernel to
> finish booting, so it still resulted in a PASS for the boot test.
> That combined with the fact that we've been tracking some other
> regressions, we didn't notice it until now.
>
It's unfortunate that it didn't get tested in linux-next as it was pulled
a while a ago.
> Also, is this the expected result for the pre-1.0 firmware:
>
> scpi_protocol scpi: SCP Protocol 0.0 Firmware 0.0.0 version
>
I think so, since Amlogic has unreleased/draft version of the specification
implemented, we did discuss to print something similar in the past.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: SCPI regressions in v4.15-rc1 on Amlogic SoCs.
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 02:24:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171204022406.GA6870@e107533-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOi56cXCBAJO6iOONTENqGdm9kE+t4fGYgTENupzkRgHjJfykw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:21:13PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> There's been a pretty major regression in v4.15-rc1 compared to v4.15
> in SCPI causing warning splats on amlogic SoCs when cpufreq starts up
> and tries to set the OPP for the first time[1].
>
Looks like some issue with firmware we are hitting. I assume CPUFreq was
never initialised on this platform before(i.e. v4.14) and these changes
are changing the probe path, so it could be that change causing the
regression.
> I ran out of time to narrow it down further since there have been
> quite a few changes since v4.14, but simply reverting
> drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c to its v4.14 state gets things working
> again.
>
Makes sense.
> This has been happening for awhile, and we should've caught it sooner
> in kernelCI.org, however this warning splat still allows the kernel to
> finish booting, so it still resulted in a PASS for the boot test.
> That combined with the fact that we've been tracking some other
> regressions, we didn't notice it until now.
>
It's unfortunate that it didn't get tested in linux-next as it was pulled
a while a ago.
> Also, is this the expected result for the pre-1.0 firmware:
>
> scpi_protocol scpi: SCP Protocol 0.0 Firmware 0.0.0 version
>
I think so, since Amlogic has unreleased/draft version of the specification
implemented, we did discuss to print something similar in the past.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-04 2:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-01 0:21 SCPI regressions in v4.15-rc1 on Amlogic SoCs Kevin Hilman
2017-12-01 0:21 ` Kevin Hilman
2017-12-01 7:08 ` Heiner Kallweit
2017-12-01 7:08 ` Heiner Kallweit
2017-12-01 15:59 ` Kevin Hilman
2017-12-01 15:59 ` Kevin Hilman
2017-12-04 2:24 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-12-04 2:24 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-12-04 18:14 ` Kevin Hilman
2017-12-04 18:14 ` Kevin Hilman
2017-12-01 16:03 ` Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 16:03 ` Jerome Brunet
2017-12-04 2:24 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2017-12-04 2:24 ` Sudeep Holla
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=20171204022406.GA6870@e107533-lin \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.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.