Re: [PATCH] ARM: v7 setup function should invalidate L1 cache

[Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen-yzvPICuk2ABMcg4IHK0kFoH6Mc4MB0Vx@public.gmane.org>]

On 06/17/2015 04:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:35:13PM -0500, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Russell,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>> <linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 12:41:01PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> FWIW, I have the feeling this has a slight influence on boot reliability on
>>>>> two of my boards:
>>>>>   - r8a7740/armadillo, which is known to suffer from a cache-related bug in
>>>>>     its bootloader, seems to have a higher change of booting successfully on
>>>>>     cold boot,
>>>>>   - sh73a0/kzm9g, which has known cache-issues with secondary CPU boot up,
>>>>>     seems to have a lower chance of booting successfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> No time to spend all week turning this into a statistical significant test
>>>>> project... The reset button is my friend...
>>>>
>>>> Damn it, you sent this right after I merged and pushed out this change in
>>>> my for-arm-soc branch, and was just about to send it to the arm-soc people.
>>>> What excellent timing you have. :)
>>>
>>> Don't worry, I didn't send that email to make you postpone this change.
>>> Giving the fuzziness of reproduction, and the flakiness (esp. on Armadillo)
>>> of the boot loader, and these are old SoCs, please go ahead.
>>>
>>>> What happens on the kzm9g if you revert the mach-shmobile changes?
>>>
>>> Seems to make no difference.
>>>
>>>> For armadillo, do you use the decompressor?  That should be doing all the
>>>> cache cleaning already, prior to the kernel being entered.
>>>
>>> I think so.
>>>
>>> Corruption pattern ranges from lock up, over "Error: unrecognized/unsupported
>>> machine ID", to booting almost completely, but lacking a few devices due to
>>> a corrupted DTB. Been like that as long as I remember, i.e. since I got the
>>> board ca. 1 year ago. Boots fine (100%) with kexec.
>>>
>>
>> It seems like this patch is causing the SoCFPGA to not boot with SMP
>> reliably. About 1 out of every 10 reboots, I'm seeing the boot failure
>> below. The error seems to only happen when I do a cold or warm reboot,
>> but never occurs during a power-up. If I revert this patch, or put
>> back the call to v7_invalidate_l1 in socfpga_secondary_startup , then
>> its able to boot 100% of the time.
> 
> It really sucks that you're only just testing this change now, because
> I've frozen my tree, and removing it for the next merge window is going
> to be an entirely non-trivial matter.  You were copied on the original
> patch, which you failed to test... I can't say I have _much_ sympathy
> for a bug report at this point in time.
> 

I apologize for not catching this error while testing this patch. But I
did test it when you first sent it out..I probably didn't do a stress
test. Sometimes the reboot fails in the 1st attempt, sometimes it fails
in the 9th attempt.

I only caught this error when I was testing my recent changes to use
CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE.

For me, I don't think you need to revert this patch or anything, but a
fix can go in for a -rcX?

Dinh