Message-ID: <CADyBb7syNx+HJ6t5JKPMnLqvq-98kPi1knuXU=SSe6_Uz6Gg1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:49:03 +0800
From:   Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        rruigrok@...eaurora.org, "Abdulhamid, Harb" <harba@...eaurora.org>,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
        G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
        Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Wei Huang <wei@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
        Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 08/17] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Rework
 counter frequency detection.

Hi Mark,

On 26 January 2017 at 01:25, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:46:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 25 January 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:25:32PM +0800, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
>> >> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
>> >>
>> >> The counter frequency detection call(arch_timer_detect_rate) combines two
>> >> ways to get counter frequency: system coprocessor register and MMIO timer.
>> >> But in a specific timer init code, we only need one way to try:
>> >> getting frequency from MMIO timer register will be needed only when we
>> >> init MMIO timer; getting frequency from system coprocessor register will
>> >> be needed only when we init arch timer.
>> >
>> > When I mentioned this splitting before, I had mean that we'd completely
>> > separate the two, with separate mmio_rate and sysreg_rate variables.
>>
>> sorry for misunderstanding.
>>
>> Are you saying :
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> index 663a57a..eec92f6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> @@ -65,7 +65,8 @@ struct arch_timer {
>>
>>  #define to_arch_timer(e) container_of(e, struct arch_timer, evt)
>>
>> -static u32 arch_timer_rate;
>> +static u32 arch_timer_sysreg_rate ;
>> +static u32 arch_timer_mmio_rate;
>>  static int arch_timer_ppi[ARCH_TIMER_MAX_TIMER_PPI];
>>
>>  static struct clock_event_device __percpu *arch_timer_evt;
>>
>>
>> But what have I learned From ARMv8 ARM is
>> AArch64 System register CNTFRQ_EL0 is provided so that software can
>> discover the frequency of the system counter.
>> CNTFRQ(in CNTCTLBase and CNTBaseN) is provided so that software can
>> discover the frequency of the system counter.
>> The bit assignments of the registers are identical in the System
>> register interface and in the memory-mapped system level interface.
>
> This means that the bits in the registers have the same meaning.
>
> However, they are separate registers, and must be written separately. A
> write to one does not propagate to the other, and they are not
> guaranteed to contain the same value.

Ah, Sorry for misunderstanding this, and thanks for correcting it,
I thought they point to the same register.

>
>> So I think they both contain the same value : the frequency of the
>> system counter, just in different view, and can be accessed in
>> different ways.
>
> Certainly, in theory, these *should* contain the same value.
>
> Unfortunately, in practice, on several systems, they do not. It is very
> easy to forget to initialise one of these registers correctly, and it's
> possible for some software to work (masking the issue), while other
> software will fail very quickly. I very much suspect we will see the
> same class of issue on ACPI systems.

Ah, thanks , that makes sense to me :-)

So can I say:
In normal case, CNTFRQ_EL0, CNTCTLBase.CNTFRQ and CNTBaseN.CNTFRQ
should be set to the same value.
But in some special case, some CNTFRQ maybe set to a different number
for some reason(maybe on purpose).

>
> Consider a system where the sysreg CNTFRQ was correct, but the MMIO
> CNTFRQ contains an erroneous non-zero value.
>
> If we get the frequency out of CNTFRQ_EL0 first, and assign this to
> arch_timer_rate, we won't bother to look at the MMIO registers (which
> could contain erroneous values). If we read an erroneous CNTBaseN.CNTFRQ
> value first, and assign this to arch_timer_rate, we won't look at
> CNTFRQ_EL0.
>
> This is *very* fragile w.r.t. probe order. I don't like the fragility of
> setting a common arch_timer_rate depending on which gets probed first,
> as this masks a bug, which will adversely affect us later.
>
> This is already a problem for DT systems, and I do not want this problem
> to spread to ACPI systems.
>
> For ACPI, the approach I'd personally like to take is to keep the two
> rates separate. Probe the sysreg timer first and subsequently probe the
> MMIO timers. If the MMIO CNTFRQ (of all frames) does not match the
> sysreg CNTFRQ, we log a warning and give up probing the MMIO timers.

OK, I think I got your point, will do this way. Thanks :-)

>
> For legacy reasons, DT is going to be more complicated, but I believe we
> can apply that approach to ACPI.
>
>> So do we really need to separate mmio_rate and sysreg_rate variables?
>>
>> And for CNTFRQ(in CNTCTLBase and CNTBaseN) , we can NOT access it in
>> Linux kernel (EL1),
>> Because ARMv8 ARM says:
>> In a system that implements both Secure and Non-secure states, this
>> register is only accessible by Secure accesses.
>
> CNTCTLBase.CNTFRQ can only be accessed in secure states. That is clear
> from Table I1-3 in ARM DDI 0487A.k_iss10775). I agree that we cannot
> access this.

yes , got it.
And we don't do it in the driver, we try to access  CNTBaseN.CNTFRQ
(in a frame) instead.

>
> For CNT{,EL0}BaseN.CNTFRQ, I am very concerned by the wording in the
> current ARMv8 ARM ARM. This does not match my understanding, nor does it
> match the description in the ARMv7 ARM. I believe this may be a
> documentation error, and I'm chasing that up internally.
>
> Either the currently logic in the driver which attempts to read
> CNT{,EL0}BaseN.CNTFRQ is flawed, or the description in the ARM ARM is
> erroneous.

Yes, those description did confuse me. :-(

But according to another document(ARMv8-A Foundation Platform User
Guide  ARM DUI0677K),
Table 3-2 ARMv8-A Foundation Platform memory map (continued)

AP_REFCLK CNTBase0, Generic Timer 64KB   S
AP_REFCLK CNTBase1, Generic Timer 64KB   S/NS

Dose it means the timer frame 0 can be accessed in SECURE status  only,
and the timer frame 1 can be accessed in both status?

And because Linux kernel is running on Non-secure EL1, so should we
skip "SECURE" timer in Linux?

>
>> That means we still need to get the frequency of the system counter
>> from CNTFRQ_EL0 in MMIO timer code.
>> This have been proved when I tested this driver on foundation model, I
>> got "0" when I access CNTFRQ from Linux kernel (Non-secure EL1)
>
> As mentioned in I3.5.7, the CNTBase{,EL0}N.CNTFRQ values are UNKNOWN out
> of reset, and require configuration by FW.
>
>> So I guess the logic of the original code is
>>  static u32 arch_timer_rate keeps the frequency of the system counter,
>>  no matter where the value comes from.
>> Because  they should be the same value. if we have got the frequency
>> of the system counter(arch_timer_rate != 0), then we don't need to get
>> it again, even in anther way.
>
> Unfortunately, in practice this is not the case. :(
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

Powered by blists - more mailing lists