[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Nicolas Pitre]

Please pull the following:

	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2

which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.

Thanks


Nicolas

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> 
> Please pull the following:
> 
> 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2
> 
> which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
> fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
> commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.

If you didn't pull this yet, this commit is now 2d61241eb3 as I added 
Dave Martin's reviewed-by tag.


Nicolas

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Olof Johansson]

Hi Nico,

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 02:37:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> Please pull the following:
> 
> 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2
> 
> which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
> fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
> commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.

So, I just replaced my branch with the one from Pawel, and the topmost patch
in your branch seems to no longer apply.

Would you mind rebasing on top of vexpress/mcpm in the arm-soc tree? You
can just send us the patch directly, no need to do a pull request for it.


-Olof

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

Hi Olof,

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:58:00AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi Nico,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 02:37:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 
> > Please pull the following:
> > 
> > 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2
> > 
> > which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
> > fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
> > commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.
> 
> So, I just replaced my branch with the one from Pawel, and the topmost patch
> in your branch seems to no longer apply.
> 
> Would you mind rebasing on top of vexpress/mcpm in the arm-soc tree? You
> can just send us the patch directly, no need to do a pull request for it.

Just as a heads-up, if Nico's fix is applied to vexpress/mcpm before this
series is pulled (it is based on top of Pawel's changes ie vexpress/mcpm)

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-August/191369.html

the series above might not apply cleanly. Conflict is minor but might be there.
Please let me know how you want me to handle this.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Olof Johansson wrote:

> Hi Nico,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 02:37:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 
> > Please pull the following:
> > 
> > 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2
> > 
> > which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
> > fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
> > commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.
> 
> So, I just replaced my branch with the one from Pawel, and the topmost patch
> in your branch seems to no longer apply.

Weird.  It still applies perfectly here.

Here's the patch nevertheless.  Please apply ASAP as Lorenzo wishes to 
base his next pull request on top of this.

----- >8

From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:47:13 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: vexpress/MCPM: fix cache disable sequence when CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y

If CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y we hget the following error:

arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c: In function 'tc2_pm_down':
arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c:200:1: error: fp cannot be used in asm here

Let's fix that by explicitly preserving r11 on the stack and removing it
from the clobber list.

Reported-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c
index 85fffa702f..3a6384c6c4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c
@@ -144,8 +144,13 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
 		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way i.e. with
 		 * no memory access within the following sequence
 		 * including to the stack.
+		 *
+		 * Note: fp is preserved to the stack explicitly prior doing
+		 * this since adding it to the clobber list is incompatible
+		 * with having CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y.
 		 */
 		asm volatile(
+		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
 		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
 		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
@@ -156,9 +161,10 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
 		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
 		"isb	\n\t"
-		"dsb	"
+		"dsb	\n\t"
+		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
 		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
-		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
+		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
 
 		/*
 		 * This is a harmless no-op.  On platforms with a real
@@ -182,6 +188,7 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
 		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way as above.
 		 */
 		asm volatile(
+		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
 		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
 		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
@@ -192,9 +199,10 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
 		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
 		"isb	\n\t"
-		"dsb	"
+		"dsb	\n\t"
+		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
 		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
-		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
+		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
 	}
 
 	__mcpm_cpu_down(cpu, cluster);
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c
index ddd97dd4e9..2b7c93a724 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c
@@ -150,8 +150,13 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
 		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way i.e. with
 		 * no memory access within the following sequence
 		 * including the stack.
+		 *
+		 * Note: fp is preserved to the stack explicitly prior doing
+		 * this since adding it to the clobber list is incompatible
+		 * with having CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y.
 		 */
 		asm volatile(
+		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
 		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
 		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
@@ -162,9 +167,10 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
 		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
 		"isb	\n\t"
-		"dsb	"
+		"dsb	\n\t"
+		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
 		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
-		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
+		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
 
 		cci_disable_port_by_cpu(mpidr);
 
@@ -185,6 +191,7 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
 		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way as above.
 		 */
 		asm volatile(
+		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
 		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
 		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
@@ -195,9 +202,10 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
 		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
 		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
 		"isb	\n\t"
-		"dsb	"
+		"dsb	\n\t"
+		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
 		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
-		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
+		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
 	}
 
 	__mcpm_cpu_down(cpu, cluster);

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 03:25:14PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Olof Johansson wrote:
> 
> > Hi Nico,
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 02:37:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > 
> > > Please pull the following:
> > > 
> > > 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2
> > > 
> > > which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
> > > fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
> > > commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.
> > 
> > So, I just replaced my branch with the one from Pawel, and the topmost patch
> > in your branch seems to no longer apply.
> 
> Weird.  It still applies perfectly here.
> 
> Here's the patch nevertheless.  Please apply ASAP as Lorenzo wishes to 
> base his next pull request on top of this.

Thanks Nico. For the records, I applied your patch against arm-soc
vexpress/mcpm and my pull request for the CPUidle driver still applies
cleanly on top of that branch, so there should not be anything to do on
my side, but I am here if anything goes wrong.

Lorenzo

> 
> ----- >8
> 
> From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:47:13 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: vexpress/MCPM: fix cache disable sequence when CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y
> 
> If CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y we hget the following error:
> 
> arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c: In function 'tc2_pm_down':
> arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c:200:1: error: fp cannot be used in asm here
> 
> Let's fix that by explicitly preserving r11 on the stack and removing it
> from the clobber list.
> 
> Reported-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c
> index 85fffa702f..3a6384c6c4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/dcscb.c
> @@ -144,8 +144,13 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
>  		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way i.e. with
>  		 * no memory access within the following sequence
>  		 * including to the stack.
> +		 *
> +		 * Note: fp is preserved to the stack explicitly prior doing
> +		 * this since adding it to the clobber list is incompatible
> +		 * with having CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y.
>  		 */
>  		asm volatile(
> +		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
>  		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
> @@ -156,9 +161,10 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
>  		"isb	\n\t"
> -		"dsb	"
> +		"dsb	\n\t"
> +		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
>  		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
> -		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
> +		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * This is a harmless no-op.  On platforms with a real
> @@ -182,6 +188,7 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
>  		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way as above.
>  		 */
>  		asm volatile(
> +		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
>  		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
> @@ -192,9 +199,10 @@ static void dcscb_power_down(void)
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
>  		"isb	\n\t"
> -		"dsb	"
> +		"dsb	\n\t"
> +		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
>  		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
> -		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
> +		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
>  	}
>  
>  	__mcpm_cpu_down(cpu, cluster);
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c
> index ddd97dd4e9..2b7c93a724 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/tc2_pm.c
> @@ -150,8 +150,13 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
>  		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way i.e. with
>  		 * no memory access within the following sequence
>  		 * including the stack.
> +		 *
> +		 * Note: fp is preserved to the stack explicitly prior doing
> +		 * this since adding it to the clobber list is incompatible
> +		 * with having CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y.
>  		 */
>  		asm volatile(
> +		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
>  		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
> @@ -162,9 +167,10 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
>  		"isb	\n\t"
> -		"dsb	"
> +		"dsb	\n\t"
> +		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
>  		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
> -		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
> +		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
>  
>  		cci_disable_port_by_cpu(mpidr);
>  
> @@ -185,6 +191,7 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
>  		 * Let's do it in the safest possible way as above.
>  		 */
>  		asm volatile(
> +		"str	fp, [sp, #-4]! \n\t"
>  		"mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ get CR \n\t"
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #"__stringify(CR_C)" \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0	@ set CR \n\t"
> @@ -195,9 +202,10 @@ static void tc2_pm_down(u64 residency)
>  		"bic	r0, r0, #(1 << 6)	@ disable local coherency \n\t"
>  		"mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	@ set AUXCR \n\t"
>  		"isb	\n\t"
> -		"dsb	"
> +		"dsb	\n\t"
> +		"ldr	fp, [sp], #4"
>  		: : : "r0","r1","r2","r3","r4","r5","r6","r7",
> -		      "r9","r10","r11","lr","memory");
> +		      "r9","r10","lr","memory");
>  	}
>  
>  	__mcpm_cpu_down(cpu, cluster);
> 
> 
> 

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:25:14AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Olof Johansson wrote:
> 
> > Hi Nico,
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 02:37:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > 
> > > Please pull the following:
> > > 
> > > 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2
> > > 
> > > which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
> > > fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
> > > commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.
> > 
> > So, I just replaced my branch with the one from Pawel, and the topmost patch
> > in your branch seems to no longer apply.
> 
> Weird.  It still applies perfectly here.

Yep, not sure what happened last night. It applies cleanly now.

> Here's the patch nevertheless.  Please apply ASAP as Lorenzo wishes to 
> base his next pull request on top of this.

There's always something more, it seems. What's left? And will it really
conflict with the bugfix here or is it just to have it all in the same series?

The reason I'm asking is that I applied this on next/soc instead of
vexpress/mcpm, and we're asking downstream maintainers to not base anthing on
next/* branches because it _might_ happen that we rebuild them.


-Olof

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Olof Johansson wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:25:14AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Nico,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 02:37:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Please pull the following:
> > > > 
> > > > 	git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux mcpm+tc2
> > > > 
> > > > which will update your vexpress/mcpm branch with one additional commit 
> > > > fixing the build issue with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER reported by RMK.  This 
> > > > commit's SHA1 is 95fbdc9cf542.
> > > 
> > > So, I just replaced my branch with the one from Pawel, and the topmost patch
> > > in your branch seems to no longer apply.
> > 
> > Weird.  It still applies perfectly here.
> 
> Yep, not sure what happened last night. It applies cleanly now.

Good.

> > Here's the patch nevertheless.  Please apply ASAP as Lorenzo wishes to 
> > base his next pull request on top of this.
> 
> There's always something more, it seems. What's left?

See below.

> And will it really conflict with the bugfix here or is it just to have 
> it all in the same series?

According to Lorenzo's subsequent reply

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260544

there is no conflict to worry about.

> The reason I'm asking is that I applied this on next/soc instead of
> vexpress/mcpm, and we're asking downstream maintainers to not base anthing on
> next/* branches because it _might_ happen that we rebuild them.

Looking into my inbox, I have the following emails from Lorenzo:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/36794

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/37006

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/37007

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260441

You apparently were CC'd on all of them, and Lorenzo asked you on two 
occasions how you wanted to handle this, and one of them is an explicit 
pull request addressed to you.


Nicolas

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

>> > Here's the patch nevertheless.  Please apply ASAP as Lorenzo wishes to
>> > base his next pull request on top of this.
>>
>> There's always something more, it seems. What's left?
>
> See below.
>
>> And will it really conflict with the bugfix here or is it just to have
>> it all in the same series?
>
> According to Lorenzo's subsequent reply
>
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260544
>
> there is no conflict to worry about.

Excellent.

>> The reason I'm asking is that I applied this on next/soc instead of
>> vexpress/mcpm, and we're asking downstream maintainers to not base anthing on
>> next/* branches because it _might_ happen that we rebuild them.
>
> Looking into my inbox, I have the following emails from Lorenzo:
>
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/36794
>
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/37006
>
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/37007
>
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260441
>
> You apparently were CC'd on all of them, and Lorenzo asked you on two
> occasions how you wanted to handle this, and one of them is an explicit
> pull request addressed to you.

Ok. I was well aware of the cpuidle series, the reason for why I was
asking was that it was unclear if you were referring to that or
something else beyond that.


-Olof

[Git pull request] fix to the vexpress/mcpm branch

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Olof Johansson wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> >> The reason I'm asking is that I applied this on next/soc instead of
> >> vexpress/mcpm, and we're asking downstream maintainers to not base anthing on
> >> next/* branches because it _might_ happen that we rebuild them.
> >
> > Looking into my inbox, I have the following emails from Lorenzo:
> >
> >   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/36794
> >
> >   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/37006
> >
> >   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/37007
> >
> >   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260441
> >
> > You apparently were CC'd on all of them, and Lorenzo asked you on two
> > occasions how you wanted to handle this, and one of them is an explicit
> > pull request addressed to you.
> 
> Ok. I was well aware of the cpuidle series, the reason for why I was
> asking was that it was unclear if you were referring to that or
> something else beyond that.

No, it's only the cpuidle series... for now.


Nicolas