Hi Mathieu,
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Mathieu Poirier
<mathieu.poir...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 1 October 2014 01:41, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:26:24PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> If power area D4, which contains the Coresight-ETM hardware block, is
>>>> powered down on R-Mobile A1 (r8a7740), the kernel crashes when
>>>> suspending from s2ram with:
>>>>
>>>> Internal error: Oops - undefined instruction: 0 [#1] ARM
>>>>
>>>> This happens because dbg_cpu_pm_notify() calls reset_ctrl_regs(), which
>>>> can't access the debug registers as the debug module is powered down.
>>>>
>>>> As suggested by Russell King, track whether the ETM block is powered down
>>>> to fix this.
>>>>
>>>> The availability of the debug registers depends on the platform and its
>>>> state. Hence provide a mechanism for platform code to indicate that the
>>>> debug registers are available or not, using a boolean flag that defaults
>>>> to true.
>
> I'm afraid the usage of the handle "arm,coresight-etm3x" is arbitrary
> here as what the code isn't related to an embedded trace module, but
> rather to the power domain that trace module happens to be in. If we
> are to take that solution a handle name relate to the debug power
> domain is likely to be more appropriate.
W.r.t. PM domains, the datasheet only mentions "Coresight-ETM" being
in the D4 power area. That's why I used the "arm,coresight-etm3x" handle.
It's still to be discovered what else is hidden there...
>>> Whilst I guess this solves your problem, it doesn't feel like a scalable fix
>>> for something that can/will assumedly happen elsewhere in an SoC (e.g. PMU
>>> registers in perf). I'd much rather have a generic abstraction for power
>>> domains, which subsystems such as hw_breakpoint can attempt to take a
>>> reference on when they want to access registers in that domain.
>>
>> I agree this is a bit hackish, and not a long-term solution.
>>
>> As soon as the ARM debug/perf subsystem starts using devices instantiated
>> from DT, implementing PM runtime support, this will work out-of-the-box.
>> Until then, we cannot have proper support for the D4 PM domain on R-Mobile
>> SoCs, without hacks like this (or like never powering down the D4 PM domain
>> --- perhaps that's the way to go).
>>
>> I believe Mathieu is working on the former, but so far without converting
>> hw_breakpoint.c nor adding PM runtime support?
>
> Humm... At this time the coresight framework doesn't deal with PM
> runtime support. It is something that's been on the list of things to
> do for a while now but I never had the time to get to it. On the flip
> side I currently have two boards on my desk that need to interact with
> different debug domains to work properly and as such, the feature is
> bound to appear at some point.
OK. We'll see...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
