[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <759d47de-2101-39cf-2f1c-cfefebebd548@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:49:15 +0100
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To: saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org, mike.leach@...aro.org
Cc: mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, swboyd@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: dynamic-replicator: Fix handling of multiple
connections
On 04/29/2020 12:47 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2020-04-28 17:53, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> On 2020-04-27 19:23, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> On 04/27/2020 10:45 AM, Mike Leach wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not sufficient. You must prevent another session trying to
>>>>> enable the other port of the replicator as this could silently fail
>>>>> the "on-going" session. Not ideal. Fail the attempt to enable a port
>>>>> if the other port is active. You could track this in software and
>>>>> fail early.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suzuki
>>>>
>>>> While I have no issue in principle with not enabling a path to a sink
>>>> that is not in use - indeed in some cases attaching to unused sinks
>>>> can cause back-pressure that slows throughput (cf TPIU) - I am
>>>> concerned that this modification is masking an underlying issue with
>>>> the platform in question.
>>>>
>>>> Should we decide to enable the diversion of different IDs to different
>>>> sinks or allow different sessions go to different sinks, then this has
>>>> potential to fail on the SC7180 SoC - and it will be difficult in
>>>> future to associate a problem with this discussion.
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> I think thats a good point.
>>> Sai, please could we narrow down this to the real problem and may be
>>> work around it for the "device" ? Do we know which sink is causing the
>>> back pressure ? We could then push the "work around" to the replicator
>>> it is connected to.
>>>
>>> Suzuki
>>
>> Hi Suzuki, Mike,
>>
>> To add some more to the information provided earlier,
>> swao_replicator(6b06000) and etf are
>> in AOSS (Always-On-SubSystem) group. Also TPIU(connected to
>> qdss_replicator) and EUD(connected
>> to swao_replicator) sinks are unused.
>>
>> Please ignore the id filter values provided earlier.
>> Here are ID filter values after boot and before enabling replicator.
>> As per
>> these idfilter values, we should not try to enable replicator if its
>> already
>> enabled (in this case for swao_replicator) right?
>>
>> localhost ~ # cat
>> /sys/bus/amba/devices/6b06000.replicator/replicator1/mgmt/idfilter0
>> 0x0
>> localhost ~ # cat
>> /sys/bus/amba/devices/6b06000.replicator/replicator1/mgmt/idfilter1
>> 0x0
>>
>> localhost ~ # cat
>> /sys/bus/amba/devices/6046000.replicator/replicator0/mgmt/idfilter0
>> 0xff
>> localhost ~ # cat
>> /sys/bus/amba/devices/6046000.replicator/replicator0/mgmt/idfilter1
>> 0xff
>>
>
> Looking more into replicator1(swao_replicator) values as 0x0 even after
> replicator_reset()
> in replicator probe, I added dynamic_replicator_reset in
> dynamic_replicator_enable()
> and am not seeing any hardlockup. Also I added some prints to check the
> idfilter
> values before and after reset and found that its not set to 0xff even
> after replicator_reset()
> in replicator probe, I don't see any other path setting it to 0x0.
>
> After probe:
>
> [ 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
AFAICS, after the reset both of them are set to 0xff.
> [ 8.502738] func replicator_probe before reset replicator replicator0
> REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0x0 REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0x0
> [ 8.515214] func replicator_probe after reset replicator replicator0
> REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0xff REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0xff
> localhost ~ #
> localhost ~ #
> localhost ~ # echo 1 > /sys/bus/coresight/devices/tmc_etr0/enable_sink
> localhost ~ #
> localhost ~ # echo 1 > /sys/bus/coresight/devices/etm0/enable_source
> [ 58.490485] func dynamic_replicator_enable before reset replicator
> replicator0 REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0xff REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0xff
> [ 58.503246] func dynamic_replicator_enable after reset replicator
> replicator0 REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0xff REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0xff
> [ 58.520902] func dynamic_replicator_enable before reset replicator
> replicator1 REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0x0 REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0x0
You need to find what is resetting the IDFILTERs to 0 for replicator1.
> [ 58.533500] func dynamic_replicator_enable after reset replicator
> replicator1 REPLICATOR_IDFILTER0=0xff REPLICATOR_IDFILTER1=0xff
> localhost ~ #
>
> Can we have a replicator_reset in dynamic_replicator_enable?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c
> b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c
> index e7dc1c31d20d..794f8e4c049f 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ static int dynamic_replicator_enable(struct
> replicator_drvdata *drvdata,
> int rc = 0;
> u32 reg;
>
> + dynamic_replicator_reset(drvdata);
> +
Again you are trying to mask an issue with this. Is the firmware
using the replicator for anything ? If so, this needs to be claimed
to prevent us from using it.
Suzuki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists