[PATCH] clk: composite: Also consider .determine_rate for rate + mux composites
knaerzche at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 15:41:15 PDT 2021
Am 01.11.21 um 23:11 schrieb Robin Murphy:
> On 2021-11-01 21:59, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-11-01 20:58, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>> Hi Guillaume,
>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:19 PM Guillaume Tucker
>>> <guillaume.tucker at collabora.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>> Please see the bisection report below about a boot failure on
>>>> Reports aren't automatically sent to the public while we're
>>>> trialing new bisection features on kernelci.org but this one
>>>> looks valid.
>>>> Some more details can be found here:
>>>> Here's what appears to be the cause of the problem:
>>>> [ 0.033465] CPU: CPUs started in inconsistent modes
>>>> [ 0.033557] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1
>>>> [ 0.034432] Internal error: BRK handler: f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>> What's weird is that that's really just the same WARN that's also
>> present in 'successful' logs, except for some reason it's behaving as
>> if the break handler hasn't been registered, despite that having
>> happened long before we got to smp_init(). At this point we're also
>> still some way off getting as far as initcalls, so I'm not sure that
>> the clock driver would be in the picture at all yet.
>> Is the bisection repeatable, or is this just random flakiness
>> misleading things? I'd also note that you need pretty horrifically
>> broken firmware to hit that warning in the first place, which might
>> cast a bit of doubt over the trustworthiness of that board altogether.
> Ah, on closer inspection it might be entirely repeatable for a given
> kernel build, but with the behaviour being very sensitive to code/data
> segment layout changes...
> 23:44:24.457917 Filename '1007060/tftp-deploy-dvdnydcw/kernel/Image'.
> 23:44:24.460178 Load address: 0x2000000
> 23:44:27.180962 Bytes transferred = 33681920 (201f200 hex)
> 23:44:27.288135 Filename
> 23:44:27.288465 Load address: 0x4000000
could you try updating u-boot to more recent version: the ramdisk
address has been moved  to 0x06000000 in v2020.01-rc5.
I couldn't reproduce this issue with the very same board.
> Yeah, that'll be a problem ;)
>>>> There doesn't appear to be any other platform in KernelCI showing
>>>> the same issue.
>>> That's a strange error for the changes from my patch.
>>> At first glance I don't see any relation to clk-composite code:
>>> - the call trace doesn't have any references to CCF or rockchip clock
>>> - clk-rk3328.c uses drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-cpu.c to register the CPU
>>> clock which does not use clk-composite
>>> Chen-Yu has tested this patch (plus ) on RK3399 and didn't observe
>>> any problems.
>>> So maybe this is a RK3328 specific issue?
>>> Anyways, I am interested in fixing this issue because reverting is
>>> becoming more and more complex (since I think we're at eight commits
>>> which would need to be reverted in total).
>>>> Please let us know if you need help debugging the issue or if you
>>>> have a fix to try.
>>> Could you please try  which is the second patch in the series which
>>> finally made it upstream.
>>> This second patch is not in 5.15 because I believed that it's only
>>> something to make the code in clk-composite.c more future-proof. It's
>>> not a condition that I am aware of.
>>> I don't have any Rockchip boards myself.
>>> So I am thankful for any help I can get.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>>> Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org
>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>> Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org
More information about the Linux-rockchip