在 2015年06月07日 11:43, Doug Anderson 写道:
Caesar, On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Caesar Wang <[email protected]> wrote:@@ -150,13 +159,15 @@ static int __cpuinit rockchip_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, * sram_base_addr + 4: 0xdeadbeaf * sram_base_addr + 8: start address for pc * */ - udelay(10); + udelay(20); I increased the 'udelay(20)' or 'udelay(50)' in rockchip_boot_secondary(). Set#2 also can repro this issue over 22600 cycles with testing scripts. (about 1 hours) log: ================= 226 ============ [ 4069.134419] CPU1: shutdown [ 4069.164431] CPU2: shutdown [ 4069.204475] CPU3: shutdown ...... [ 4072.454453] CPU1: shutdown [ 4072.504436] CPU2: shutdown [ 4072.554426] CPU3: shutdown [ 4072.577827] CPU1: Booted secondary processor [ 4072.582611] CPU2: Booted secondary processor [ 4072.587426] CPU3: Booted secondary processor <hang> The set #4 will be better work.OK, I'm OK with this, but I'd like to get Heiko's opinion. Also: * Just for kicks, does mdelay(1) work? I know that's 100x more than
OK, it should delay more time. the mdelay(1) can be work over 50000 cycles, so that should be work. Perhaps, can we use 'usleep_range(500, 1000)' to work. Heiko, do you agree with it?
udelay(10), but previously we were actually looping waiting for the power domain, right? ...so maybe the old code used to introduce a pretty big delay. * Does anyone from the chip design team have any idea why patch set #4 works but patch set #2 doesn't? I know it's Sunday morning in China right now, but maybe you could ask Monday? Thanks! -Doug
-- Thanks, - Caesar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
