Message-ID: <79CD15C6BA57404B839C016229A409A83EB43D0F@DBDE01.ent.ti.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:04:29 +0000
From:	"Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@...com>
To:	"Hunter, Jon" <jon-hunter@...com>
CC:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Mohammed, Afzal" <afzal@...com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: Fix kernel BUG for DT boot mode

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 22:12:07, Hunter, Jon wrote:
> 
> On 10/18/2012 11:16 AM, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:17:56, Hunter, Jon wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/15/2012 02:16 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >>> From: hvaibhav@...com <hvaibhav@...com>
> >>>
> >>> With recent changes in omap gpmc driver code, in case of DT
> >>> boot mode, where bootloader does not configure gpmc cs space
> >>> will result into kernel BUG() inside gpmc_mem_init() function,
> >>> as gpmc cs0 gpmc_config7[0].csvalid bit is set to '1' and
> >>> gpmc_config7[0].baseaddress is set to '0' on reset.
> >>
> >> I am not sure I completely follow the logic here.
> >>
> >> Won't this problem occur if the bootloader does not configure the gpmc
> >> cs space AND we are not using DT?
> >>
> > 
> > That's what exactly the above comment describes.
> 
> Hmm ... you said "in the case of DT", but I am saying even "in the case
> WITHOUT DT" this can happen. So I think the subject is mis-leading.
> 

Ok, may be my above statement was confusing. But the bottom line is,
We should GPMC without any pre-configuration (either at u-boot or ROM) will 
have this issue.


> >> Is the csvalid bit set because we are booting from the internal ROM?
> >>
> > 
> > As per TRM, the reset value of the CS0_valis bit is set to 0. I have pasted 
> > TRM statement below -
> > 
> > "Chip-select enable (reset value is 1 for CS[0] and 0 for CS[1-5])."
> 
> The above two sentences don't see to agree ...

Oops, it was typo mistake. I meant "is set to '1'"

> 
> > And same applies to OMAP3 family of devices.
> 
> For which boot-modes? All or just the gpmc boot-modes?
> 

That's reset value, and I believe it is applicable for all boot modes.

> My omap3430 beagle has been booting with DT fine for some time and I
> have not encountered this problem even on the latest kernel with the
> gpmc driver present.
> 

OMAp3430 beagle board has NAND flash available over GPMC-CS0 interface.

> >> I guess I don't see why csvalid bit being set and a base-address of 0x0
> >> should not be allowed. That should be a valid combination.
> >>
> > 
> > Yes, agreed.
> > 
> >> One problem I see with gpmc_mem_init() is that it assumes that
> >> BOOT_ROM_SPACE is 1MB for all devices starting at 0x0 apart from the
> >> apollon board. For newer devices such as OMAP4, there is only 48KB of
> >> internal ROM and only mapped to 0x0 when booting from internal ROM. So
> >> this needs to be fixed.
> >>
> >> How much internal ROM does the AM335x have and where is it mapped?
> >>
> > 
> > AM33xx memory map is something like,
> > 
> > Boot ROM  0x4000_0000 0x4001_FFFF 128KB
> >           0x4002_0000 0x4002_BFFF 48KB    32-bit Ex/R(1) - Public
> > Reserved  0x4002_C000 0x400F_FFFF 848KB   Reserved
> > Reserved  0x4010_0000 0x401F_FFFF 1MB     Reserved
> > Reserved  0x4020_0000 0x402E_FFFF 960KB   Reserved
> > Reserved  0x402f_0000 0x4020_03FF 64KB    Reserved
> > SRAM internal 0x402F_0400 0x402F_FFFF    32-bit Ex/R/W(1)
> 
> Does the boot ROM get mapped to 0x0, when booting from ROM?
> 

I expect, it should be same as OMAP4.

> >>> This use-case is applicable for any board/EVM which doesn't have
> >>> any peripheral connected to gpmc cs0, for example BeagleXM and
> >>> BeagleBone, so DT boot mode fails.
> >>>
> >>> This patch adds of_have_populated_dt() check before creating
> >>> device, so that for DT boot mode, gpmc probe will not be called
> >>> which is expected behavior, as gpmc is not supported yet from DT.
> >>
> >> Yes, but we do actually still allow some platform devices to be probed
> >> (such as dmtimers) when booting with DT that don't support DT yet. So
> >> this change prevents us from using the gpmc on boards when booting with DT.
> >>
> > 
> > The idea here was,
> > 
> > In order to use GPMC in meaningful way, where some peripheral is connected 
> > to the GPMC, you must create platform_device for the probe to happen 
> > properly. Now all the devices I know so far, we have gpmc_smsc911x_init(), 
> > omap_nand_flash_init(), etc...
> > These api's are getting called only through machine_desc.init_xxx callbacks,
> > And in case of DT, we have centralized machine_desc definition for all 
> > platforms (board-generic.c). So even though you want to use GPMC for DT boot
> > mode, you can not make use of peripheral without changing board-files to 
> > change to create platform_device.
> > 
> > Does it make sense?
> 
> Sure, if you are using one of the generic machine configurations for DT.
> However, while this migration happens people may create their own custom
> machine configurations for DT for testing things like smsc911x.
> 

If we want to think about all such use-cases, then yes, this patch is not 
required.

> >> I am not convinced that this is addressing the underlying problem with
> >> gpmc_mem_init().
> >>
> > 
> > The patch you submitted is cleanup patch and is required irrespective of 
> > this patch. I believe this patch is just makes sure that, if you are booting 
> > from DT and you do not have meaningful DT node for GPMC and peripheral 
> > interfaced to it, no point in probing it. 
> > 
> > Does it make any sense???
> 
> Yes, but do you also see the bug that is hiding in gpmc_mem_init()?
> 
> My point is to highlight this and not hide it, so that we can fix it
> now. Otherwise if we wait until we enable the gpmc driver with DT and
> this could hinder the DT migration later.
> 

As I already mentioned in my previous response, your patch is required 
irrespective of this patch. I would consider your patch as a cleanup patch.


Both the patches are independent, your patch is handling the error path 
properly, whereas, my patch makes sure that you don't unnecessarily probe 
GPMC if you are booting from DT and GPMC node is not present, as described 
above.


Thanks,
Vaibhav

> Jon
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists