From: sudeep.holla@arm•com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: Versatile Express randomly fails to boot - Versatile Express to be removed from nightly testing
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:27:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <551AD902.9090401@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55196E31.80803@arm.com>
On 30/03/15 16:39, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 30/03/15 16:05, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:48:08PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Though <2 2 1> works fine most of the time, I did try testing continuous
>>> reboot overnight and it failed. I kept increasing the latencies and
>>> found out that even max latency of <8 8 8> could not survive continuous
>>> overnight reboot test and it fails with exact same issue.
>>>
>>> So I am not sure if we can consider it as a fix. However if we are OK to
>>> have *mostly reliable*, then we can push that change.
>>
>> Okay, the issue I have is this.
>>
>> Versatile Express used to boot reliably in the nightly build tests prior
>> to DT. In that mode, we never configured the latency values.
>>
>
> I have never run in legacy mode as I am relatively new to vexpress
> platform and started using with DT from first. Just to understand better
> I had a look at the commit commit 81cc3f868d30("ARM: vexpress: Remove
> non-DT code") and I see the below function in
> arch/arm/mach-vexpress/ct-ca9x4.c So I assume we were programming one
> cycle for all the latencies just like DT.
>
I was able to boot v3.18 without DT and I compared the L2C settings with
and w/o DT, they are identical. Also v3.18 with and w/o DT survived
overnight reboot testing.
>> Then the legacy code was removed, and I had to switch over to DT booting,
>> and shortly after I noticed that the platform was now randomly failing
>> its nightly boot tests.
>>
>> Maybe we should revert the commit removing the superior legacy code,
>> because that seems to be the only thing that was reliable? Maybe it was
>> premature to remove it until DT had proven itself?
>>
Not sure on that as v3.18 with DT seems to be working fine and passed
overnight reboot testing.
>> On the other hand, if the legacy code hadn't been removed, I probably
>> would never have tested it - but then, from what I hear, this was a
>> *known* issue prior to the removal of the legacy code. Given that the
>> legacy code worked totally fine, it's utterly idiotic to me to have
>> removed the working legacy code when DT is soo unstable.
>>
>> Whatever way I look at this, this problem _is_ a _regression_, and we
>> can't sit around and hope it magically vanishes by some means.
>>
>
> I agree, last time I tested it was fine with v3.18. However I have not
> run the continuous overnight reboot test on that. I will first started
> looking at that, just to see if it's issue related to DT vs legacy boot.
>
Since v3.18 is both boot modes and the problem is reproducible on
v3.19-rc1. I am trying to bisect but not sure if that's feasible for
such a problem. I also found out by accident that even on mainline with
more configs enabled, it's hard to hit the issue.
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-31 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-15 21:33 Versatile Express randomly fails to boot Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-16 0:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-16 0:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-16 9:35 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-16 13:04 ` Versatile Express randomly fails to boot - Versatile Express to be removed from nightly testing Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-16 17:47 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-16 18:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-16 19:16 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-16 19:52 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-17 12:05 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-17 15:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-17 15:51 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-17 16:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-30 14:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-30 14:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-30 15:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-30 15:39 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-31 17:27 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2015-04-02 14:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-04-02 17:38 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-14 15:31 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-06-14 15:52 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-06-14 16:44 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-14 16:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-06-15 9:27 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-06-15 9:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-15 9:50 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2016-06-15 9:59 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-15 9:27 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-14 16:31 ` Sudeep Holla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=551AD902.9090401@arm.com \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox