From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:44:26 +0100
Subject: Versatile Express randomly fails to boot - Versatile Express to
 be removed from nightly testing
In-Reply-To: <20160614155220.GB1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <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>
 <551AD902.9090401@arm.com> <20150402141336.GI24899@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <551D7EAB.1000200@arm.com> <1465918285.2840.41.camel@linaro.org>
 <20160614155220.GB1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5760346A.10903@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Russell,

On 14/06/16 16:52, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:31:25PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> Using "arm,tag-latency = <2 2 1>" as Russell seemed to indicate [2]
>> fixed things for him, also works for me. So should we update mainline
>> device-tree with that?
>
> I've proposed that several times, and there seems to be no desire to
> do so.

Sorry for missing that. IIRC, we didn't conclude as <2 2 1> did fail
on continuous reboot test over night on my setup. As I mentioned early 
we can change to this new value if people are able to use it reliably.

> For me, VE CT9x4 no longer boots in my nightly builds, and
> my plan at the start of the year was to take it out of both the
> nightly builds and the boot tests - no one within ARM seems to have
> any interest in the platform.
>

It's hard to get any kind of attention from hardware guys for such an
old platform.

> Having a randomly failing platform due to hardware issues is not
> productive to an automated boot test system, so I think we should
> (a) remove it from automated testing, and (b) consider deleting
> support for it from the kernel tree, as it seems there is little
> interest in debugging what's happening.
>

Even with higher latency if the platform is unusable, I agree to remove.
If you think it's usable with the updated latency(<2 2 1>) then we can
update it.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep