[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51417E58.5050501@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:08:00 +0530
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>
CC: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: hw_breakpoint: Enable debug powerdown only if system
supports 'has_ossr'
Will,
On Wednesday 13 March 2013 05:59 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> Hi Dietmar,
> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 05:35 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 13/03/13 06:52, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>> Commit {9a6eb31 ARM: hw_breakpoint: Debug powerdown support for
>>> self-hosted
>>> debug} introduces debug powerdown support for self-hosted debug.
>>> While merging the patch 'has_ossr' check was removed which
>>> was needed for hardwares which doesn't support self-hosted debug.
>>> Pandaboard (A9) is one such hardware and Dietmar's orginial
>>> patch did mention this issue.
>>> Without that check on Panda with CPUIDLE enabled, a flood of
>>> below messages thrown.
>>>
>>> [ 3.597930] hw-breakpoint: CPU 0 failed to disable vector catch
>>> [ 3.597991] hw-breakpoint: CPU 1 failed to disable vector catch
>>>
>>
>> Hi Lokesh,
>>
>> I confirm that this has_ossr condition has to go back into the
>> pm_init(void) call. I just verified it again on my Panda board and I get
>> the same issue like you without it.
>>
>> I guess what was happening is that Will asked me if this check is really
>> necessary and I said No without re-testing on my Panda board as an V7
>> debug architecture example where OSSR is not implemented. Since then I
>> only tested in on V7.1 debug architectures where OSSR is mandatory.
>> Sorry about this and thanks for catching this.
> Thanks for confirming..:)
>
Can you please queue this one for 3.9-rc2+ ? Without this patch
CPUIDLE is unusable on OMAP4 devices because of those flood
of warning messages.
I was also wondering whether we should just warn once rather
than continuous warnings in the notifier. Patch is end of the
email.
Regards,
Santosh
>From b8db63f786719aef835f1ef4e20f3b3406b99b62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:03:25 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: hw_breakpoints: Use warn_once to avoid message flood on
unsupported ossr machines
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
---
arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
index 96093b7..5dc1aa6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
@@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ static void reset_ctrl_regs(void *unused)
}
if (err) {
- pr_warning("CPU %d debug is powered down!\n", cpu);
+ pr_warn_once("CPU %d debug is powered down!\n", cpu);
cpumask_or(&debug_err_mask, &debug_err_mask, cpumask_of(cpu));
return;
}
@@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ clear_vcr:
isb();
if (cpumask_intersects(&debug_err_mask, cpumask_of(cpu))) {
- pr_warning("CPU %d failed to disable vector catch\n", cpu);
+ pr_warn_once("CPU %d failed to disable vector catch\n", cpu);
return;
}
@@ -1007,7 +1007,7 @@ clear_vcr:
}
if (cpumask_intersects(&debug_err_mask, cpumask_of(cpu))) {
- pr_warning("CPU %d failed to clear debug register pairs\n", cpu);
+ pr_warn_once("CPU %d failed to clear debug register pairs\n", cpu);
return;
}
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists