[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ae0fe2050be01cc1403c7d53a0da8cb8@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:41:06 +0530
From: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: dynamic-replicator: Fix handling of multiple
connections
Hi Mike,
On 2020-04-29 22:28, Mike Leach wrote:
> Hi,
>
[...]
>> >> > You need to find what is resetting the IDFILTERs to 0 for replicator1.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That is right.
>> >>
>> >
>> > By default all replicators have the IDFILTER registers set to 0 out of
>> > hardware reset. This ensures that programmable replicators behave in
>> > the same way as non-programmable replicators out of reset.
>> >
>> > The dynamic_replicator_reset() is of course a driver state reset -
>> > which filters out all trace on the output ports. The trace is then
>> > enabled when we set the trace path from source to sink.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for these explanations.
>>
>> > It seems to me that you have 2 problems that need solving here:
>> >
>> > 1) Why does the reset_replicator() called from probe() _not_ work
>> > correctly on replicator 1? It seems to work later if you introduce a
>> > reset after more of the system has powered and booted. This is
>> > startiing to look a little like a PM / clocking issue.
>>
>> reset_replicator() does work in probe correctly for both replicators,
>> below logs is collected before and after reset in probe. It is later
>> that it's set back to 0x0 and hence the suggestion to look at firmware
>> using this replicator1.
>>
> OK - sorry I read your statement saying that replicator1 was 0 after
> the reset in probe(), rather than look at the logs.
>
> From the logs it is working at the time probe() occurs, but by the
> time we come to enable the replicator later, something has reset these
> registers / hardware outside the control of the replicator driver.
>
Yes, I will try to get some more information from the firmware side if
there is anything messing up.
>
>> [ 8.477669] func replicator_probe before reset replicator
>> replicator1
>> REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0x0 REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0x0
>> [ 8.489470] func replicator_probe after reset replicator
>> replicator1
>> REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0xff REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0xff
>>
>> >
>> > This failure is causing the state when we are trying to set an output
>> > port that both branches of this replicator are enabled for output.
>> > In effect for this replicator, setting the output port has no effect
>> > as it is already enabled.
>> >
>> > 2) Why does having both ports of this repilicator enabled cause a hard
>> > lockup? This is a separate hardware / system issue.
>> >
>> > The worst that should happen if both branches of a replicator are
>> > enabled is that you get undesirable back pressure. (e.g. there is a
>> > system we have seen - I think it is Juno - where there is a static
>> > replicator feeding the TPIU and ETR - we need to disable the TPIU to
>> > prevent undesired back pressure).
>> >
>>
>> Ok so hardlockup is not expected because of this backpressure.
>>
>
> Hardlockup is not expected, but this is not related to any possible
> backpressure.
>
> Ordinarily having both legs of a replicator enabled should not cause
> system failure.
>
Ok got it, thanks.
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists