From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:28:39 -0500 Subject: [PATCH CRITICAL] ARM: s3c64xx: dt: Fix boot failure due to double clock initialization In-Reply-To: References: <1386964779-29457-1-git-send-email-tomasz.figa@gmail.com> <201312140400.16794.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <52AC9547.3000308@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Arnd, Olof, On Saturday 14 December 2013 12:50 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Friday 13 December 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> Commit >>> >>> 4178bac ARM: call of_clk_init from default time_init handler >>> >>> added implicit call to of_clk_init() from default time_init callback, >>> but it did not change platforms calling it from other callbacks, despite >>> of not having custom time_init callbacks. This caused double clock >>> initialization on such platforms, leading to boot failures. An example >>> of such platform is mach-s3c64xx. >>> >>> This patch fixes boot failure on s3c64xx by dropping custom init_irq >>> callback, which had a call to of_clk_init() and moving system reset >>> initialization to init_machine callback. This allows us to have >>> clocks initialized properly without a need to have custom init_time or >>> init_irq callbacks. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa >> >> I see of_clk_init(NULL) getting called on two other ARM platforms: >> >> $ git grep -w of_clk_init arch/arm >> arch/arm/kernel/time.c: of_clk_init(NULL); >> arch/arm/mach-keystone/pm_domain.c: of_clk_init(NULL); >> arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c: of_clk_init(NULL); >> arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-s3c64xx-dt.c: of_clk_init(NULL); >> >> Are the other two platforms ok here? >> >> I assume that mvebu is fine since Sebastian would have noticed breaking >> that one and it has a custom init_time function, but keystone seems >> broken in the same way as s3c64xx. Santosh, can you have a look? > > Yeah, and Free Electrons also sent two systems to Kevin so he has them > in his boot test setup, and they're still happy there. Keystone lacks > such coverage though, so Santosh will need to check. > Keystone isn't broken as such but some warnings are produced because of the change. This was noticed on keystone quite a while back and a patch[1] is already in my queue. It didn't click me that other machines might have been also affected at that point of time. Regards, Santosh [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg288578.html