[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140904174840.GB14822@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:48:40 +0100
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arch_timer: Fix code to use physical timers
when requested
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:01:27PM +0100, Sonny Rao wrote:
[...]
> > If an OS is booted at PL2 it can access the physical counters, and
> > should do so in case something like KVM will be used later. The OS can
> > write to CNTVOFF at PL2, and if it sets CNTVOFF to zero the physical and
> > virtual counters are equivalent. Thus it can use the virtual counters
> > and doesn't need to have additional code in several places (including
> > the VDSO) where it needs to choose to read which counters to read.
> >
> > The problem only exists where PL2 exists and the firmware/bootloader
> > skipped PL2 without initialising the necessary PL2 state. This is in
> > general a stupid thing to do; it introduces a problem that need not
> > exist and throws away the option of using the features PL2 provides.
> > This is a firmware/bootloader bug.
>
> Well it's not quite that simple, this is actually an issue with the
> hardware that the CNTVOFF comes up with different values on different
> cores. This happens not only at boot, but any time the core is
> powered on, which could include deep sleep or CPU hotplug and suspend
> to ram. The firmware may not be involved in all these cases, so we
> cannot rely on it to fix this problem.
And why isn't firmware involved in those cases if it _is_ involved in
cold boot ? Resuming from low-power means resuming the machine/core as it
was when it was running before power down, anything that deviates from that
behaviour is a programming bug.
Lorenzo
--
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