From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:27:30 +0100
Subject: Versatile Express randomly fails to boot - Versatile Express
 to be removed from nightly testing
In-Reply-To: <55196E31.80803@arm.com>
References: <55071742.6000405@arm.com>
 <20150316181634.GK8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <55072BF5.7030901@arm.com>
 <20150316195255.GM8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <550818A6.9020205@arm.com>
 <20150317153657.GY8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <55084D99.7050004@arm.com>
 <20150317161748.GZ8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20150330140333.GJ24899@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <55196228.5050805@arm.com>
 <20150330150552.GK24899@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <55196E31.80803@arm.com>
Message-ID: <551AD902.9090401@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 30/03/15 16:39, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 30/03/15 16:05, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:48:08PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Though <2 2 1> works fine most of the time, I did try testing continuous
>>> reboot overnight and it failed. I kept increasing the latencies and
>>> found out that even max latency of <8 8 8> could not survive continuous
>>> overnight reboot test and it fails with exact same issue.
>>>
>>> So I am not sure if we can consider it as a fix. However if we are OK to
>>> have *mostly reliable*, then we can push that change.
>>
>> Okay, the issue I have is this.
>>
>> Versatile Express used to boot reliably in the nightly build tests prior
>> to DT.  In that mode, we never configured the latency values.
>>
>
> I have never run in legacy mode as I am relatively new to vexpress
> platform and started using with DT from first. Just to understand better
> I had a look at the commit commit 81cc3f868d30("ARM: vexpress: Remove
> non-DT code") and I see the below function in
> arch/arm/mach-vexpress/ct-ca9x4.c So I assume we were programming one
> cycle for all the latencies just like DT.
>

I was able to boot v3.18 without DT and I compared the L2C settings with
and w/o DT, they are identical. Also v3.18 with and w/o DT survived
overnight reboot testing.

>> Then the legacy code was removed, and I had to switch over to DT booting,
>> and shortly after I noticed that the platform was now randomly failing
>> its nightly boot tests.
>>
>> Maybe we should revert the commit removing the superior legacy code,
>> because that seems to be the only thing that was reliable?  Maybe it was
>> premature to remove it until DT had proven itself?
>>

Not sure on that as v3.18 with DT seems to be working fine and passed
overnight reboot testing.

>> On the other hand, if the legacy code hadn't been removed, I probably
>> would never have tested it - but then, from what I hear, this was a
>> *known* issue prior to the removal of the legacy code.  Given that the
>> legacy code worked totally fine, it's utterly idiotic to me to have
>> removed the working legacy code when DT is soo unstable.
>>
>> Whatever way I look at this, this problem _is_ a _regression_, and we
>> can't sit around and hope it magically vanishes by some means.
>>
>
> I agree, last time I tested it was fine with v3.18. However I have not
> run the continuous overnight reboot test on that. I will first started
> looking at that, just to see if it's issue related to DT vs legacy boot.
>

Since v3.18 is both boot modes and the problem is reproducible on
v3.19-rc1. I am trying to bisect but not sure if that's feasible for
such a problem. I also found out by accident that even on mainline with
more configs enabled, it's hard to hit the issue.

Regards,
Sudeep