From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Quadros Subject: Re: L2 cache stability workaround for 4460 ES1.0 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 11:02:10 +0300 Message-ID: <4F795D02.8010705@ti.com> References: <4F794D5D.3090509@ti.com> <4F795B76.3030002@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:59297 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751551Ab2DBICM (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2012 04:02:12 -0400 Received: from dlep26.itg.ti.com ([157.170.170.121]) by comal.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id q3282COe018139 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:02:12 -0500 Received: from DFLE70.ent.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep26.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3282B29000850 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:02:11 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Shilimkar, Santosh" Cc: "Dechesne, Nicolas" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" On 04/02/2012 10:58 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >> On 04/02/2012 10:38 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>> Hi Santosh, >>>> >>>> I came across the attached patch from you. I also came across this post >>>> stating that it was decided not to send this patch upstream. >>>> >>>> http://www.digipedia.pl/usenet/thread/18885/8437/#post8496 >>>> >>>> The problem is that we have to keep porting this patch each time we >>>> update the kernel. >>>> >>>> Do you know if the root cause has been found? If not can we have this >>>> patch upstream till the root cause is found? >>>> >>> Yes and fixed in OMAP4460 ES1.2. >> >> Did you mean ES1.1? >> > yep. Sorry for the typo. > >> Could you please point me to the errata ID? The only cache related >> errata I can see is Errata ID: i690 >> >>> >>>> It seems the patch at least makes the kernel usable on ES1.0. >>>> >>> I know but that still is not enough. It's like 80 % WA of the issue >>> seen on ES1.0. We are not suppose to have many boards with >>> ES1.0 >>> >> Even better if there are not many boards. It seems most of the boards >> will be with TI. I think we should have the fix in even if it is not >> 100% fix. >> >> What do you say? >> > My request is to get rid of ES1.0 board because the WA just > not completely correct. Don't feel patching kernel for silicon > which is not suppose to be used nether has complete WA > to support it. > OK Santosh. seems like cache is broken bad on ES1.0. Is it possible to disable the cache for ES1.0 and print a warning message about it? regards, -roger