[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <TDQ9DR.SDDTZMEA0H7F3@crapouillou.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:44:17 +0100
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To: Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, mturquette@...libre.com,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: ingenic-tcu: Properly enable registers before
accessing timers
Le ven., juin 10 2022 at 16:43:27 +0100, Aidan MacDonald
<aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com> a écrit :
>
> Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> Quoting Aidan MacDonald (2022-06-03 06:47:05)
>>> Access to registers is guarded by
>>> ingenic_tcu_{enable,disable}_regs()
>>> so the stop bit can be cleared before accessing a timer channel,
>>> but
>>> those functions did not clear the stop bit on SoCs with a global
>>> TCU
>>> clock gate.
>>>
>>> Testing on the X1000 has revealed that the stop bits must be
>>> cleared
>>> _and_ the global TCU clock must be ungated to access timer
>>> registers.
>>> Programming manuals for the X1000, JZ4740, and JZ4725B specify this
>>> behavior. If the stop bit isn't cleared, then writes to registers
>>> do
>>> not take effect, which can leave clocks with no defined parent when
>>> registered and leave clock tree state out of sync with the
>>> hardware,
>>> triggering bugs in downstream drivers relying on TCU clocks.
>>>
>>> Fixing this is easy: have ingenic_tcu_{enable,disable}_regs()
>>> always
>>> clear the stop bit, regardless of the presence of a global TCU
>>> gate.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Any Fixes: tag?
>
> Probably 4f89e4b8f121 ("clk: ingenic: Add driver for the TCU clocks")
> but I don't have docs or hardware to confirm the bug affects the
> jz4770,
> which is the only other SoC affected by the change.
>
> I think what caused my problem was my bootloader stopping all the
> timer
> channels. The stop bits are supposed to be zeroed at reset, so I'd
> guess
> the jz4770 relied on that and only worked by accident.
I'll test it on JZ4770 this weekend.
> I'll send a v2 along shortly. Is it worth CC'ing stable as well?
If the bug is in jz-5.18 or earlier, yes.
Cheers,
-Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists