linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for RK3399 SoCs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57198351.2060608@rock-chips.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:50:09 +0800
From:	"jay.xu" <jay.xu@...k-chips.com>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc:	"Huang, Tao" <huangtao@...k-chips.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, will.deacon@....com,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	catalin.marinas@....com, davidriley@...omium.org,
	dianders@...omium.org, jwerner@...omium.org, smbarber@...omium.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for RK3399 SoCs

Hi Marc:

On 2016年04月22日 05:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:24:09 +0200
> Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Donnerstag, 21. April 2016, 12:30:18 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:47:20 +0800
>>>
>>> "Huang, Tao" <huangtao@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi, Mark:
>>>>
>>>> On 2016年04月21日 18:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:58:12AM +0800, Jianqun Xu wrote:
>>>>>> +		cpu_l0: cpu@0 {
>>>>>> +			device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>>> +			enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>> +			#cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>> +			clocks = <&cru ARMCLKL>;
>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>> +		cpu_b0: cpu@100 {
>>>>>> +			device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a72", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x100>;
>>>>>> +			enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>> +			#cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>> +			clocks = <&cru ARMCLKB>;
>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	arm-pmu {
>>>>>> +		compatible = "arm,armv8-pmuv3";
>>>>>> +		interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>>> +	};
>>>>> This is wrong, and must go. There should be a separate node for the PMU
>>>>> of each microarchitecture, with the appropriate compatible string to
>>>>> represent that (see the juno dts).
>>>> You are right. The first version we wrote is:
>>>>      pmu_a53 {
>>>>      
>>>>          compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
>>>>          interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>          interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_l0>,
>>>>          
>>>>                       <&cpu_l1>,
>>>>                       <&cpu_l2>,
>>>>                       <&cpu_l3>;
>>>>      
>>>>      };
>>>>      
>>>>      pmu_a72 {
>>>>      
>>>>          compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu";
>>>>          interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>          interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_b0>,
>>>>          
>>>>                       <&cpu_b1>;
>>>>      
>>>>      };
>>>>
>>>> but unfortunately, the arm pmu driver do not support PPI in two cluster
>>>> well,
>>>> so we have to replace with this implementation.
>>>>
>>>>> In this case things are messier as the same PPI number is being used
>>>>> across clusters. Marc (Cc'd) has been working on PPI partitions, which
>>>>> should allow us to support that.
>>>> Great! So what we can do right now? Wait this feature, and delete
>>>> arm-pmu node?
>>> I'd rather you have a look at the patches, test them with your HW,
>>> and comment on what doesn't work!
>> I would think we could do it in two tracks, testing and fixing but also letting
>> the rk3399 devicetrees move forward without the pmu at first :-) .
> Where would the fun be then? ;-)
thanks for your advices, and I will try to test the percpu-partition 
patches.

by the way, do you think it's better to let the dtsi be reviewed first,
then the percpu-partition patches could be tested by more people ?

Jianqun
>
> 	M.