From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:08:46 +0200 Subject: Enable arm_global_timer for Zynq brakes boot In-Reply-To: References: <15e19315-ce88-4d3c-bad9-0a37d9e52f6b@CO1EHSMHS007.ehs.local> <51F99747.4060901@linaro.org> <51FA9AE8.1060004@linaro.org> <1c83c081-60c6-49e3-a85c-f64dd5be0e60@CH1EHSMHS030.ehs.local> <51FA9F54.3060704@linaro.org> <5204C54A.9020105@st.com> <5204FA5D.3060908@linaro.org> <20130809172757.GD14845@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <5209088E.20404@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/12/2013 06:03 PM, S?ren Brinkmann wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 08/09, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> >>> yes, but at least the broadcast mechanism should send an IPI to cpu0 to >>> wake it up, no ? As Stephen stated this kind of configuration should has >>> never been tested before so the tick broadcast code is not handling this >>> case properly IMHO. >>> >> >> If you have a per-cpu tick device that isn't suffering from >> FEAT_C3_STOP why wouldn't you use that for the tick versus a >> per-cpu tick device that has FEAT_C3_STOP? It sounds like there >> is a bug in the preference logic or you should boost the rating >> of the arm global timer above the twd. Does this patch help? It >> should make the arm global timer the tick device and whatever the >> cadence timer you have into the broadcast device. > > I finally got to test your patch. Unfortunately, it makes the system > hang even earlier: [ ... ] Can you boot with maxcpus=1 and then give the result of timer_list ? -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog