[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] Allwinner A64 timer workaround
On 07/04/18 03:41, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/07/2018 10:16, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 03/07/18 19:42, Samuel Holland wrote:
>>> On 07/03/18 10:09, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 11/05/18 03:27, Samuel Holland wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> Several people (including me) have experienced extremely large system
>>>>> clock jumps on their A64-based devices, apparently due to the architectural
>>>>> timer going backward, which is interpreted by Linux as the timer wrapping
>>>>> around after 2^56 cycles.
>>>>> Investigation led to discovery of some obvious problems with this SoC's
>>>>> architectural timer, and this patch series introduces what I believe is
>>>>> the simplest workaround. More details are in the commit message for patch
>>>>> 1. Patch 2 simply enables the workaround in the device tree.
>>>> What's the deal with this series? There was a couple of nits to address, and
>>>> I was more or less expecting a v2.
>>> I got reports that people were still occasionally having clock jumps after
>>> applying this series, so I wanted to attempt a more complete fix, but I haven't
>>> had time to do any deeper investigation. I think this series is still beneficial
>>> even if it's not a complete solution, so I'll come back with another patch on
>>> top of this if/once I get it fully fixed.
>>> I'll prepare a v2 with a bounded loop. Presumably, 3 * (max CPU Hz) / (24MHz
>>> timer) ≈ 150 should be a conservative iteration limit?
>> Should be OK.
>> Maxime: How do you want to deal with the documentation aspect? We need
>> an erratum number, but AFAIU the concept hasn't made it into the silicom
>> vendor's brain yet. Any chance you could come up with something that
>> uniquely identifies this?
> I went through the different pointers provided in the description but I
> did not find a clear statement that is a hardware issue or may be I
> missed it.
> Are we sure there isn't another subsystem responsible on this
> instability ? (eg PM or something else)

This issue has been observed on kernels with and without DVFS, across several
Linux, U-Boot, and Trusted Firmware versions. It has not been observed on any
other Allwinner SoC, including the A64's twin, the H5.

In fact, this workaround was recently successfully used in U-Boot [1] to fix
issues with an MMC driver that needed reliable numbers from CNTVCT.

So while the vendor hasn't confirmed it (and I wouldn't count on that
happening), everything I've seen points to it being a silicon bug, not a
software issue.


>>> Also, does this make sense to CC to stable?
>> Probably not, as the HW never worked, so it is not a regression.
>> Thanks,
>> M.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-15 22:05    [W:0.138 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site