From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: composite: Also consider .determine_rate for rate + mux composites References: <163425193558.1688384.15520943968787313145@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20211015120559.3515645-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <04a58d50-634b-fa20-95b4-eb6831f77e85@collabora.com> <3e42ae24-8db4-fb11-edf2-a25bca47ecae@arm.com> From: Alex Bee Message-ID: <49a0dda1-8d0f-580c-d92d-de759b51edb3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 23:41:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3e42ae24-8db4-fb11-edf2-a25bca47ecae@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-ID: To: Robin Murphy , Martin Blumenstingl , Guillaume Tucker Cc: sboyd@kernel.org, heiko@sntech.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, "kernelci@groups.io" , Collabora Kernel ML , Chen-Yu Tsai Hi Guillaume, Am 01.11.21 um 23:11 schrieb Robin Murphy: > On 2021-11-01 21:59, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 2021-11-01 20:58, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >>> Hi Guillaume, >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:19 PM Guillaume Tucker >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>>> Please see the bisection report below about a boot failure on >>>> rk3328-rock64. >>>> >>>> Reports aren't automatically sent to the public while we're >>>> trialing new bisection features on kernelci.org but this one >>>> looks valid. >>>> >>>> Some more details can be found here: >>>> >>>>    https://linux.kernelci.org/test/case/id/617f11f5c157b666fb3358e6/ >>>> >>>> Here's what appears to be the cause of the problem: >>>> >>>> [    0.033465] CPU: CPUs started in inconsistent modes >>>> [    0.033557] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1 >>>> [    0.034432] Internal error: BRK handler: f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP >> >> What's weird is that that's really just the same WARN that's also >> present in 'successful' logs, except for some reason it's behaving as >> if the break handler hasn't been registered, despite that having >> happened long before we got to smp_init(). At this point we're also >> still some way off getting as far as initcalls, so I'm not sure that >> the clock driver would be in the picture at all yet. >> >> Is the bisection repeatable, or is this just random flakiness >> misleading things? I'd also note that you need pretty horrifically >> broken firmware to hit that warning in the first place, which might >> cast a bit of doubt over the trustworthiness of that board altogether. > > Ah, on closer inspection it might be entirely repeatable for a given > kernel build, but with the behaviour being very sensitive to code/data > segment layout changes... > > ... > 23:44:24.457917  Filename '1007060/tftp-deploy-dvdnydcw/kernel/Image'. > 23:44:24.460178  Load address: 0x2000000 > ... > 23:44:27.180962  Bytes transferred = 33681920 (201f200 hex) > ... > 23:44:27.288135  Filename > '1007060/tftp-deploy-dvdnydcw/ramdisk/ramdisk.cpio.gz.uboot'. > 23:44:27.288465  Load address: 0x4000000 > ... could you try updating u-boot to more recent version: the ramdisk address has been moved [1] to 0x06000000 in v2020.01-rc5. I couldn't reproduce this issue with the very same board. [1] https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/commit/b2e373d16b0345d3c3f4beefdf0889e83faf173d Alex > > Yeah, that'll be a problem ;) > > Cheers, > Robin. > >>>> There doesn't appear to be any other platform in KernelCI showing >>>> the same issue. >>> That's a strange error for the changes from my patch. >>> At first glance I don't see any relation to clk-composite code: >>> - the call trace doesn't have any references to CCF or rockchip clock >>> drivers >>> - clk-rk3328.c uses drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-cpu.c to register the CPU >>> clock which does not use clk-composite >>> >>> Chen-Yu has tested this patch (plus [0]) on RK3399 and didn't observe >>> any problems. >>> So maybe this is a RK3328 specific issue? >>> Anyways, I am interested in fixing this issue because reverting is >>> becoming more and more complex (since I think we're at eight commits >>> which would need to be reverted in total). >>> >>>> Please let us know if you need help debugging the issue or if you >>>> have a fix to try. >>> Could you please try [0] which is the second patch in the series which >>> finally made it upstream. >>> This second patch is not in 5.15 because I believed that it's only >>> something to make the code in clk-composite.c more future-proof. It's >>> not a condition that I am aware of. >>> >>> I don't have any Rockchip boards myself. >>> So I am thankful for any help I can get. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> [0] >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clk/linux.git/commit/?h=clk-next&id=6594988fd625ff0d9a8f90f1788e16185358a3e6 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Linux-rockchip mailing list >>> Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-rockchip mailing list >> Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip