All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Caesar Wang <wxt@rock-chips.com>
To: Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	dianders@chromium.org
Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: rockchip: fix the CPU soft reset
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:55:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5576B81C.6030904@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55760F0F.9010302@rock-chips.com>



在 2015年06月09日 05:54, Caesar Wang 写道:
>
>
> 在 2015年06月08日 17:24, Russell King - ARM Linux 写道:
>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:11:34PM +0800, Caesar Wang wrote:
>>> We need different orderings when turning a core on and turning a core
>>> off.  In one case we need to assert reset before turning power off.
>>> In ther other case we need to turn power on and the deassert reset.
>>>
>>> In general, the correct flow is:
>>>
>>> CPU off:
>>>      reset_control_assert
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), BIT(pd))
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_off
>>> CPU on:
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), 0)
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_on
>>>      reset_control_deassert
>>>
>>> This is needed for stressing CPU up/down, as per:
>>>      cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/
>>>      for i in $(seq 10000); do
>>>          echo "================= $i ============"
>>>          for j in $(seq 100); do
>>>              while [[ "$(cat cpu1/online)$(cat cpu2/online)$(cat 
>>> cpu3/online)" != "000"" ]]
>>>                  echo 0 > cpu1/online
>>>                  echo 0 > cpu2/online
>>>                  echo 0 > cpu3/online
>>>              done
>>>              while [[ "$(cat cpu1/online)$(cat cpu2/online)$(cat 
>>> cpu3/online)" != "111" ]]; do
>>>                  echo 1 > cpu1/online
>>>                  echo 1 > cpu2/online
>>>                  echo 1 > cpu3/online
>>>              done
>>>          done
>>>      done
>>>
>>> The following is reproducile log:
>> "reproducable"
>>
>>>      [34466.186812] PM: noirq suspend of devices complete after 
>>> 0.669 msecs
>>>      [34466.186824] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
>>>      [34466.187509] CPU1: shutdown
>>>      [34466.188672] CPU2: shutdown
>>>      [34473.736627] Kernel panic - not syncing:Watchdog detected 
>>> hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
>>>      .......
>>> or others similar log:
>>>      .......
>>>      [ 4072.454453] CPU1: shutdown
>>>      [ 4072.504436] CPU2: shutdown
>>>      [ 4072.554426] CPU3: shutdown
>>>      [ 4072.577827] CPU1: Booted secondary processor
>>>      [ 4072.582611] CPU2: Booted secondary processor
>>>      [ 4072.587426] CPU3: Booted secondary processor
>>>      <hang>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <wxt@rock-chips.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> Changes in v5:
>>>      - back to v2 cpu on/off flow, As Heiko point out in patch v3.
>>>      - delay more time in rockchip_boot_secondary().
>>>      From CPU up/down tests, Needed more time to complete CPU process.
>>>      In order to ensure a more, Here that be delayed 1ms.
>>>
>>> Changes in v4:
>>>      - Add reset_control_put(rstc) for the non-error case.
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>>      - FIx the PATCH v2, it doesn't work on chromium 3.14.
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>      - As Heiko suggestion, re-adjust the cpu on/off flow.
>>>      CPU off:
>>>      reset_control_assert
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), BIT(pd))
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_off
>>>      CPU on:
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), 0)
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_on
>>>      reset_control_deassert
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c 
>>> b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
>>> index 5b4ca3c..bd40852 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
>>> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ static struct reset_control 
>>> *rockchip_get_core_reset(int cpu)
>>>   static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>>>   {
>>>       u32 val = (on) ? 0 : BIT(pd);
>>> +    struct reset_control *rstc = rockchip_get_core_reset(pd);
>>>       int ret;
>>>         /*
>>> @@ -80,20 +81,15 @@ static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>>>        * processor is powered down.
>>>        */
>>>       if (read_cpuid_part() != ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) {
>>> -        struct reset_control *rstc = rockchip_get_core_reset(pd);
>>> -
>>> +        /* We only require the reset on the RK3288 at the moment */
>>>           if (IS_ERR(rstc)) {
>>>               pr_err("%s: could not get reset control for core %d\n",
>>>                      __func__, pd);
>>>               return PTR_ERR(rstc);
>>>           }
>>>   -        if (on)
>>> -            reset_control_deassert(rstc);
>>> -        else
>>> +        if (!on)
>>>               reset_control_assert(rstc);
>>> -
>>> -        reset_control_put(rstc);
>>>       }
>>>         ret = regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), val);
>>> @@ -112,6 +108,12 @@ static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>>>           }
>>>       }
>>>   +    if (read_cpuid_part() != ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9 && on)
>>> +        reset_control_deassert(rstc);
>>> +
>>> +    if (!IS_ERR(rstc))
>>> +        reset_control_put(rstc);
>>> +
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>   @@ -148,7 +150,7 @@ static int __cpuinit 
>>> rockchip_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
>>>            * sram_base_addr + 4: 0xdeadbeaf
>>>            * sram_base_addr + 8: start address for pc
>>>            * */
>>> -        udelay(10);
>>> +        mdelay(1);
>> The reason for this delay needs a comment, as it's not obvious why you
>> would need to delay before writing to the SRAM.  Also documenting in
>> a comment why the delay is necessary would be good.
>>
>
> Sorry for delay, I wait a better solution for this.
> We don't need any 10us delay or 1m delay, I think.
>
> -        udelay(10);
>
> +        while (readl(sram_base_addr + 4 ) != 1); //lock =1
>
>
> We need do that if i'm correct from the bootrom code.
> Tested are pass over 120000 cycles on today, I will wait more testing 
> cycles to confirm that's ok.
>

Please forget it!

It's helpful that be caused by adding a log.:-(

>
>

-- 
Thanks,
- Caesar

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: wxt@rock-chips.com (Caesar Wang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: rockchip: fix the CPU soft reset
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:55:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5576B81C.6030904@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55760F0F.9010302@rock-chips.com>



? 2015?06?09? 05:54, Caesar Wang ??:
>
>
> ? 2015?06?08? 17:24, Russell King - ARM Linux ??:
>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:11:34PM +0800, Caesar Wang wrote:
>>> We need different orderings when turning a core on and turning a core
>>> off.  In one case we need to assert reset before turning power off.
>>> In ther other case we need to turn power on and the deassert reset.
>>>
>>> In general, the correct flow is:
>>>
>>> CPU off:
>>>      reset_control_assert
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), BIT(pd))
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_off
>>> CPU on:
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), 0)
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_on
>>>      reset_control_deassert
>>>
>>> This is needed for stressing CPU up/down, as per:
>>>      cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/
>>>      for i in $(seq 10000); do
>>>          echo "================= $i ============"
>>>          for j in $(seq 100); do
>>>              while [[ "$(cat cpu1/online)$(cat cpu2/online)$(cat 
>>> cpu3/online)" != "000"" ]]
>>>                  echo 0 > cpu1/online
>>>                  echo 0 > cpu2/online
>>>                  echo 0 > cpu3/online
>>>              done
>>>              while [[ "$(cat cpu1/online)$(cat cpu2/online)$(cat 
>>> cpu3/online)" != "111" ]]; do
>>>                  echo 1 > cpu1/online
>>>                  echo 1 > cpu2/online
>>>                  echo 1 > cpu3/online
>>>              done
>>>          done
>>>      done
>>>
>>> The following is reproducile log:
>> "reproducable"
>>
>>>      [34466.186812] PM: noirq suspend of devices complete after 
>>> 0.669 msecs
>>>      [34466.186824] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
>>>      [34466.187509] CPU1: shutdown
>>>      [34466.188672] CPU2: shutdown
>>>      [34473.736627] Kernel panic - not syncing:Watchdog detected 
>>> hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
>>>      .......
>>> or others similar log:
>>>      .......
>>>      [ 4072.454453] CPU1: shutdown
>>>      [ 4072.504436] CPU2: shutdown
>>>      [ 4072.554426] CPU3: shutdown
>>>      [ 4072.577827] CPU1: Booted secondary processor
>>>      [ 4072.582611] CPU2: Booted secondary processor
>>>      [ 4072.587426] CPU3: Booted secondary processor
>>>      <hang>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <wxt@rock-chips.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> Changes in v5:
>>>      - back to v2 cpu on/off flow, As Heiko point out in patch v3.
>>>      - delay more time in rockchip_boot_secondary().
>>>      From CPU up/down tests, Needed more time to complete CPU process.
>>>      In order to ensure a more, Here that be delayed 1ms.
>>>
>>> Changes in v4:
>>>      - Add reset_control_put(rstc) for the non-error case.
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>>      - FIx the PATCH v2, it doesn't work on chromium 3.14.
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>      - As Heiko suggestion, re-adjust the cpu on/off flow.
>>>      CPU off:
>>>      reset_control_assert
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), BIT(pd))
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_off
>>>      CPU on:
>>>      regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), 0)
>>>      wait_for_power_domain_to_turn_on
>>>      reset_control_deassert
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c 
>>> b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
>>> index 5b4ca3c..bd40852 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
>>> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ static struct reset_control 
>>> *rockchip_get_core_reset(int cpu)
>>>   static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>>>   {
>>>       u32 val = (on) ? 0 : BIT(pd);
>>> +    struct reset_control *rstc = rockchip_get_core_reset(pd);
>>>       int ret;
>>>         /*
>>> @@ -80,20 +81,15 @@ static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>>>        * processor is powered down.
>>>        */
>>>       if (read_cpuid_part() != ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) {
>>> -        struct reset_control *rstc = rockchip_get_core_reset(pd);
>>> -
>>> +        /* We only require the reset on the RK3288 at the moment */
>>>           if (IS_ERR(rstc)) {
>>>               pr_err("%s: could not get reset control for core %d\n",
>>>                      __func__, pd);
>>>               return PTR_ERR(rstc);
>>>           }
>>>   -        if (on)
>>> -            reset_control_deassert(rstc);
>>> -        else
>>> +        if (!on)
>>>               reset_control_assert(rstc);
>>> -
>>> -        reset_control_put(rstc);
>>>       }
>>>         ret = regmap_update_bits(pmu, PMU_PWRDN_CON, BIT(pd), val);
>>> @@ -112,6 +108,12 @@ static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>>>           }
>>>       }
>>>   +    if (read_cpuid_part() != ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9 && on)
>>> +        reset_control_deassert(rstc);
>>> +
>>> +    if (!IS_ERR(rstc))
>>> +        reset_control_put(rstc);
>>> +
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>   @@ -148,7 +150,7 @@ static int __cpuinit 
>>> rockchip_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
>>>            * sram_base_addr + 4: 0xdeadbeaf
>>>            * sram_base_addr + 8: start address for pc
>>>            * */
>>> -        udelay(10);
>>> +        mdelay(1);
>> The reason for this delay needs a comment, as it's not obvious why you
>> would need to delay before writing to the SRAM.  Also documenting in
>> a comment why the delay is necessary would be good.
>>
>
> Sorry for delay, I wait a better solution for this.
> We don't need any 10us delay or 1m delay, I think.
>
> -        udelay(10);
>
> +        while (readl(sram_base_addr + 4 ) != 1); //lock =1
>
>
> We need do that if i'm correct from the bootrom code.
> Tested are pass over 120000 cycles on today, I will wait more testing 
> cycles to confirm that's ok.
>

Please forget it!

It's helpful that be caused by adding a log.:-(

>
>

-- 
Thanks,
- Caesar

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-09  9:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-08  7:11 [PATCH v5 0/3] ARM: rockchip: fix the SMP Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:11 ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:11 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: rockchip: fix the CPU soft reset Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:11   ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:51   ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:51     ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  9:24   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-06-08  9:24     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-06-08 21:54     ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08 21:54       ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-09  9:55       ` Caesar Wang [this message]
2015-06-09  9:55         ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  9:43   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-06-08  9:43     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-06-09  0:43     ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-09  0:43       ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-09  7:46       ` Heiko Stübner
2015-06-09  7:46         ` Heiko Stübner
2015-06-08  7:11 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] ARM: rockchip: ensure CPU to enter WFI/WFE state Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:11   ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  9:28   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-06-08  9:28     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-06-09  0:40     ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-09  0:40       ` Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:11 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: rockchip: fix the SMP code style Caesar Wang
2015-06-08  7:11   ` Caesar Wang

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=5576B81C.6030904@rock-chips.com \
    --to=wxt@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=caesar.wang@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    /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.