| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <571DEF30.90604@rock-chips.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:19:28 +0800
From: "Huang, Tao" <huangtao@...k-chips.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
davidriley@...omium.org, heiko@...ech.de, pawel.moll@....com,
ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, dianders@...omium.org, smbarber@...omium.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
galak@...eaurora.org, jwerner@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@...k-chips.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for RK3399 SoCs
Hi, Mark:
On 2016年04月25日 18:05, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:48:51PM +0800, Huang, Tao wrote:
>> Hi, Marc:
>> On 2016年04月21日 19:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> You can find the patches over there:
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/11/182
>>>
>>> and on the following branch:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git
>>> irq/percpu-partition
>> I tested these patches. Because our kernel is based on v4.4, so I back
>> port most changes about
>> include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> and change rk3399.dtsi base on your arm,gic-v3.txt:
>>
>> gic: interrupt-controller@...00000 {
>> compatible = "arm,gic-v3";
>> - #interrupt-cells = <3>;
>> + #interrupt-cells = <4>;
>> #address-cells = <2>;
>> #size-cells = <2>;
>> ...
>> +
>> + ppi-partitions {
>> + part0: interrupt-partition-0 {
>> + affinity = <&cpu_l0 &cpu_l1 &cpu_l2 &cpu_l3>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + part1: interrupt-partition-1 {
>> + affinity = <&cpu_b0 &cpu_b1>;
>> + };
>> + };
>>
>> and change every interrupts from three cells to four cells, such as
>> saradc: saradc@...00000 {
>> compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-saradc";
>> reg = <0x0 0xff100000 0x0 0x100>;
>> - interrupts = <GIC_SPI 62 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 62 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
>> #io-channel-cells = <1>;
>> clocks = <&cru SCLK_SARADC>, <&cru PCLK_SARADC>;
>> clock-names = "saradc", "apb_pclk";
>>
>> and pmu define as:
>> pmu_a53 {
>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
>> interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW &part0>;
>> interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_l0>,
>> <&cpu_l1>,
>> <&cpu_l2>,
>> <&cpu_l3>;
>> };
>>
>> pmu_a72 {
>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu", "arm,cortex-a57-pmu";
> That Cortex-A57 PMU fallback should just go. We already have Cortex-A72
> PMU support upstream, and I believe there are sufficient differences
> such that the Cortex-A72 PMU is not a strict superset of the Cortex-A57
> PMU.
As I say, I tested on v4.4, I don't back port
arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c, so I use "arm,cortex-a57-pmu". Upstream
will use "arm,cortex-a72-pmu" only.
BTW, I don't see any differences between A72/A57 in source code:
static int armv8_a57_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
{
armv8_pmu_init(cpu_pmu);
cpu_pmu->name = "armv8_cortex_a57";
cpu_pmu->map_event = armv8_a57_map_event;
cpu_pmu->pmu.attr_groups = armv8_pmuv3_attr_groups;
return armv8pmu_probe_num_events(cpu_pmu);
}
static int armv8_a72_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
{
armv8_pmu_init(cpu_pmu);
cpu_pmu->name = "armv8_cortex_a72";
cpu_pmu->map_event = armv8_a57_map_event;
cpu_pmu->pmu.attr_groups = armv8_pmuv3_attr_groups;
return armv8pmu_probe_num_events(cpu_pmu);
}
static const struct of_device_id armv8_pmu_of_device_ids[] = {
...
{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a57-pmu", .data = armv8_a57_pmu_init},
{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu", .data = armv8_a72_pmu_init},
...
{},
};
>
>> interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW &part1>;
>> interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_b0>,
>> <&cpu_b1>;
>> };
>>
>> It can boot. And I test with Android simpleperf stat and perf top, it works!
>> So these patches work on RK3399.
> There is still work to do in the driver, as Marc pointed out.
>
> While it may appear to work, it will be requesting percpu IRQs on wrong
> CPUs (e.g. see how cpu_pmu_request_irq calls cpu_pmu_enable_percpu_irq,
> on each CPU), and we will need to update the binding codument to cover
> this case.
I also set interrupt-affinity, maybe this avoid problem. I add some
debug print on driver, I believe irq is request on right cpus.
Thanks,
Huang Tao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists