From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com (=?utf-8?B?U8O2cmVu?= Brinkmann) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:17:28 -0700 Subject: Enable arm_global_timer for Zynq brakes boot In-Reply-To: <5209088E.20404@linaro.org> References: <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> <5209088E.20404@linaro.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:08:46PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > 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 ? That doesn't seem to help anymore. It hangs too. Same picture w/ and w/o 'maxcpus', except for [ 0.000000] Kernel command line: console=ttyPS0,115200 earlyprintk maxcpus=1 S?ren