* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
@ 2012-11-27 19:53 Doug Anderson
2012-11-27 22:11 ` Olof Johansson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Doug Anderson @ 2012-11-27 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c | 5 ++++-
arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
index 73b940f..b919f5f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/serial_core.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
#include <linux/of_irq.h>
#include <linux/export.h>
#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
@@ -335,8 +336,10 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
{
+ unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
+
/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
- if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440"))
+ if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
else
iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
index 67fa3c2..7b76c3f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
@@ -122,9 +122,11 @@ static const struct of_dev_auxdata exynos5440_auxdata_lookup[] __initconst = {
static void __init exynos5_dt_map_io(void)
{
+ unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
+
exynos_init_io(NULL, 0);
- if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5250"))
+ if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5250"))
s3c24xx_init_clocks(24000000);
}
--
1.7.7.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-27 19:53 [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible() Doug Anderson
@ 2012-11-27 22:11 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-27 22:27 ` Kukjin Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Olof Johansson @ 2012-11-27 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
>
> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
> Division by zero in kernel.
> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28)
> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38)
> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
>
> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
-Olof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-27 22:11 ` Olof Johansson
@ 2012-11-27 22:27 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-27 22:37 ` Olof Johansson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kukjin Kim @ 2012-11-27 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
>>
>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
>> Division by zero in kernel.
>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28)
>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38)
>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
>
> Thanks Doug.
>
> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
>
Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
local :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on
this.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-27 22:27 ` Kukjin Kim
@ 2012-11-27 22:37 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-28 5:23 ` Kukjin Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Olof Johansson @ 2012-11-27 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
>>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
>>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
>>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
>>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
>>>
>>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
>>> Division by zero in kernel.
>>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
>>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
>>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
>>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
>>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
>>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
>>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
>>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
>>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
>>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
>>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
>>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
>>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
>>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
>>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
>>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Doug.
>>
>> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
>> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
>>
> Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
>
> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>
> Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my local
> :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
Ok, applied. Thanks all.
-Olof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-27 22:37 ` Olof Johansson
@ 2012-11-28 5:23 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-28 6:05 ` Olof Johansson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kukjin Kim @ 2012-11-28 5:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Olof Johansson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
> >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
> >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
> >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
> >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
> >>>
> >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
> >>> Division by zero in kernel.
> >>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
> >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
> >>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
> >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
> >>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
(Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
> >>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
> >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
> >>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
> >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
> >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
> >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
> >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
> >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
> >>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
> >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
> >>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
> (0x40008078)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Doug.
> >>
> >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
> >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
> >>
> > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
> >
> > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> >
> > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
> local
> > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
>
> Ok, applied. Thanks all.
>
Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
non-DT.
Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
8<---------------------------------------
From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
This fixes following in case of non-DT:
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_get_flat_dt_root'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
---
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
index b919f5f..2110091 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
@@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
else
+#endif
iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
if (mach_desc)
8<---------------------------------------
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-28 5:23 ` Kukjin Kim
@ 2012-11-28 6:05 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-28 16:16 ` Doug Anderson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Olof Johansson @ 2012-11-28 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Olof Johansson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
> > >>>
> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
> > >>> Division by zero in kernel.
> > >>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
> > >>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
> > >>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
> > >>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
> > >>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
> > >>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
> > >>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
> > (0x40008078)
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Doug.
> > >>
> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
> > >>
> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> > >
> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
> > local
> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
> >
> > Ok, applied. Thanks all.
> >
> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
> non-DT.
Ick, thanks for catching that.
>
> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
>
> 8<---------------------------------------
> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
>
> This fixes following in case of non-DT:
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'of_get_flat_dt_root'
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
>
> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> index b919f5f..2110091 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>
> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>
> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
> else
> +#endif
> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
code and can be hard to follow.
There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
patches without trying to build. :(
I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos_iodesc[] __initdata = {
},
};
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5
static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
{
.virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_CHIPID,
@@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
.type = MT_DEVICE,
},
};
+#endif
static struct map_desc exynos4_iodesc[] __initdata = {
{
@@ -347,13 +349,19 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
{
+ struct map_desc *iodesc = exynos_iodesc;
+ int iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc);
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
- if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
- iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
- else
- iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
+ if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) {
+ iodesc = exynos5440_iodesc;
+ iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc);
+ }
+#endif
+
+ iotable_init(iodesc, iodesc_sz);
if (mach_desc)
iotable_init(mach_desc, size);
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
index 2a75624..f1326be 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
*/
#include <linux/of_platform.h>
+#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
#include <linux/serial_core.h>
#include <asm/mach/arch.h>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-28 6:05 ` Olof Johansson
@ 2012-11-28 16:16 ` Doug Anderson
2012-11-28 17:44 ` Olof Johansson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Doug Anderson @ 2012-11-28 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Olof / Kukjin,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Olof Johansson wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
>> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
>> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
>> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
>> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
>> > >>> Division by zero in kernel.
>> > >>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
>> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
>> > >>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
>> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
>> > >>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
>> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
>> > >>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
>> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
>> > >>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
>> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
>> > >>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
>> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
>> > >>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
>> > (0x40008078)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks Doug.
>> > >>
>> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
>> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
>> > >>
>> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
>> > >
>> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>> > >
>> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
>> > local
>> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
>> >
>> > Ok, applied. Thanks all.
>> >
>> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
>> non-DT.
>
> Ick, thanks for catching that.
Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying
exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files.
>>
>> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
>> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
>>
>> 8<---------------------------------------
>> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
>>
>> This fixes following in case of non-DT:
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
>> 'of_get_flat_dt_root'
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
>> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> index b919f5f..2110091 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>>
>> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
>> {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>>
>> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
>> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
>> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
>> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
>> else
>> +#endif
>> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
>
> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
> code and can be hard to follow.
Agree.
> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
> patches without trying to build. :(
In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
#include <linux/of_platform.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
#include <linux/serial_core.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <linux/memblock.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
>
> I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
No objection to squashing a fix and your CL is better than what I
have, but see below for an issue.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos_iodesc[] __initdata = {
> },
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5
Are you sure you want this #ifdef? If so it should match the ifdef
used below. With your patch applied I can get a compile error with:
make exynos_defconfig
echo '# CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 is not set' >> .config
In other words your code will fail if someone wants a FDT-enabled exynos4 build.
> static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
> {
> .virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_CHIPID,
> @@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
> .type = MT_DEVICE,
> },
> };
> +#endif
>
> static struct map_desc exynos4_iodesc[] __initdata = {
> {
> @@ -347,13 +349,19 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>
> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
> {
> + struct map_desc *iodesc = exynos_iodesc;
> + int iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>
> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
> - if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
> - iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
> - else
> - iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
> + if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) {
> + iodesc = exynos5440_iodesc;
> + iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc);
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> + iotable_init(iodesc, iodesc_sz);
>
> if (mach_desc)
> iotable_init(mach_desc, size);
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
> index 2a75624..f1326be 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> +#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> #include <linux/serial_core.h>
>
> #include <asm/mach/arch.h>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-28 16:16 ` Doug Anderson
@ 2012-11-28 17:44 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-30 11:08 ` Kukjin Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Olof Johansson @ 2012-11-28 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> Olof / Kukjin,
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>>> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
>>> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
>>> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
>>> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
>>> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
>>> > >>> Division by zero in kernel.
>>> > >>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
>>> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
>>> > >>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
>>> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
>>> > >>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
>>> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
>>> > >>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
>>> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
>>> > >>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
>>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
>>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
>>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
>>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
>>> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
>>> > >>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
>>> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
>>> > >>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
>>> > (0x40008078)
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thanks Doug.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
>>> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
>>> > >>
>>> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
>>> > >
>>> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> > >
>>> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
>>> > local
>>> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
>>> >
>>> > Ok, applied. Thanks all.
>>> >
>>> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
>>> non-DT.
>>
>> Ick, thanks for catching that.
>
> Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying
> exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files.
>
>>>
>>> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
>>> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
>>>
>>> 8<---------------------------------------
>>> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
>>>
>>> This fixes following in case of non-DT:
>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> 'of_get_flat_dt_root'
>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
>>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>>> index b919f5f..2110091 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>>> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>>>
>>> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
>>> {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>>>
>>> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
>>> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
>>> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
>>> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
>>> else
>>> +#endif
>>> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
>>
>> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
>> code and can be hard to follow.
>
> Agree.
>
>> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
>> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
>> patches without trying to build. :(
>
> In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
> 659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
> the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
> ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
>
> Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> #include <linux/serial_core.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/memblock.h>
> #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order.
We'll just have to fix it up later, if we don't add of_fdt.h in the
exynos5440 branch, the code will not be bisectable.
>> I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
>
> No objection to squashing a fix and your CL is better than what I
> have, but see below for an issue.
>
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos_iodesc[] __initdata = {
>> },
>> };
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5
>
> Are you sure you want this #ifdef? If so it should match the ifdef
> used below. With your patch applied I can get a compile error with:
>
> make exynos_defconfig
> echo '# CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 is not set' >> .config
>
> In other words your code will fail if someone wants a FDT-enabled exynos4 build.
Yep, the above needs to be:
#if defined(CONFIG_OF) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5)
I've pushed out the branch with the patch applied (with the above changed).
-Olof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
2012-11-28 17:44 ` Olof Johansson
@ 2012-11-30 11:08 ` Kukjin Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kukjin Kim @ 2012-11-30 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Olof Johansson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > Olof / Kukjin,
> >
[...]
> >>
> >> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's
> fragile
> >> code and can be hard to follow.
> >
> > Agree.
Definitely, same here ;-)
> >> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
> >> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just
> apply
> >> patches without trying to build. :(
> >
> > In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
> > 659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
> > the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
> > ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
> >
> > Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
> >
> > #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> > #include <linux/serial_core.h>
> > #include <linux/io.h>
> > #include <linux/memblock.h>
> > #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
>
> Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order.
Yeah.
> We'll just have to fix it up later,
Sure, I will after release 3.8-rc1.
[...]
>
> I've pushed out the branch with the patch applied (with the above
changed).
>
Thanks for your fix.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-11-30 11:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-11-27 19:53 [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible() Doug Anderson
2012-11-27 22:11 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-27 22:27 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-27 22:37 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-28 5:23 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-28 6:05 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-28 16:16 ` Doug Anderson
2012-11-28 17:44 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-30 11:08 ` Kukjin Kim
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).