RE: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson > wrote: > > Olof / Kukjin, > > [...] > >> > >> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's > fragile > >> code and can be hard to follow. > > > > Agree. Definitely, same here ;-) > >> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the > >> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just > apply > >> patches without trying to build. :( > > > > In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at > > 659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in > > the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b: > > ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support". > > > > Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with: > > > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order. Yeah. > We'll just have to fix it up later, Sure, I will after release 3.8-rc1. [...] > > I've pushed out the branch with the patch applied (with the above changed). > Thanks for your fix. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim , Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Olof / Kukjin,
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
>>> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
>>> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
>>> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
>>> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
>>> > >>>Division by zero in kernel.
>>> > >>>[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
>>> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
>>> > >>>[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
>>> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
>>> > >>>[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
>>> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
>>> > >>>[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
>>> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
>>> > >>>[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
>>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
>>> > >>>[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
>>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
>>> > >>>[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
>>> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
>>> > >>>[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
>>> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
>>> > >>>[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
>>> > (0x40008078)
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thanks Doug.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
>>> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
>>> > >>
>>> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
>>> > >
>>> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim
>>> > >
>>> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
>>> > local
>>> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
>>> >
>>> > Ok, applied. Thanks all.
>>> >
>>> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
>>> non-DT.
>>
>> Ick, thanks for catching that.
>
> Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying
> exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files.
>
>>>
>>> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
>>> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
>>>
>>> 8<---
>>> From: Kukjin Kim
>>> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
>>>
>>> This fixes following in case of non-DT:
>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> 'of_get_flat_dt_root'
>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
>>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>>> index b919f5f..2110091 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>>> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>>>
>>> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
>>> {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>>>
>>> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
>>> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
>>> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
>>> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
>>> else
>>> +#endif
>>> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
>>
>> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's
>> fragile
>> code and can be hard to follow.
>
> Agree.
>
>> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
>> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
>> patches without trying to build. :(
>
> In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
> 659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
> the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
> ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
>
> Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
>
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order.
We'll just have to fix it up later, if we don't add of_fdt.h in the
exynos5440 branch, the cod
Re: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
Olof / Kukjin,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Olof Johansson wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
>> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
>> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
>> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
>> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
>> > >>>Division by zero in kernel.
>> > >>>[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
>> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
>> > >>>[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
>> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
>> > >>>[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
>> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
>> > >>>[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
>> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
>> > >>>[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
>> > >>>[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
>> > >>>[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
>> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
>> > >>>[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
>> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
>> > >>>[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
>> > (0x40008078)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks Doug.
>> > >>
>> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
>> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
>> > >>
>> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
>> > >
>> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim
>> > >
>> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
>> > local
>> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
>> >
>> > Ok, applied. Thanks all.
>> >
>> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
>> non-DT.
>
> Ick, thanks for catching that.
Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying
exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files.
>>
>> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
>> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
>>
>> 8<---
>> From: Kukjin Kim
>> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
>>
>> This fixes following in case of non-DT:
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
>> 'of_get_flat_dt_root'
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
>> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> index b919f5f..2110091 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>>
>> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
>> {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>>
>> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
>> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
>> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
>> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
>> else
>> +#endif
>> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
>
> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
> code and can be hard to follow.
Agree.
> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
> patches without trying to build. :(
In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
>
> I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
No objection to squashing a fix and your CL is better than what I
have, but see below for an issue.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> @@ -122,6
Re: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Olof Johansson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
> > >>>
> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
> > >>>Division by zero in kernel.
> > >>>[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
> > >>>[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
> > >>>[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
> > >>>[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
> > >>>[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
> > >>>[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
> > >>>[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
> > >>>[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
> > >>>[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
> > (0x40008078)
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Doug.
> > >>
> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
> > >>
> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim
> > >
> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
> > local
> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
> >
> > Ok, applied. Thanks all.
> >
> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
> non-DT.
Ick, thanks for catching that.
>
> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
>
> 8<---
> From: Kukjin Kim
> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
>
> This fixes following in case of non-DT:
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'of_get_flat_dt_root'
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
>
> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> index b919f5f..2110091 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
>
> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>
> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
> else
> +#endif
> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
code and can be hard to follow.
There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
patches without trying to build. :(
I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos_iodesc[] __initdata = {
},
};
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5
static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
{
.virtual= (unsigned long)S5P_VA_CHIPID,
@@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
.type = MT_DEVICE,
},
};
+#endif
static struct map_desc exynos4_iodesc[] __initdata = {
{
@@ -347,13 +349,19 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
{
+ struct map_desc *iodesc = exynos_iodesc;
+ int iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc);
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
/* initialize the io descriptors w
RE: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
Olof Johansson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
> >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
> >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
> >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
> >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
> >>>
> >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
> >>>Division by zero in kernel.
> >>>[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
> >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
> >>>[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
> >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28)
> >>>[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
(Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
> >>>[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
> >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
> >>>[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
> >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
> >>>[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
> >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
> >>>[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
> >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38)
> >>>[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
> >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
> >>>[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
> (0x40008078)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Doug.
> >>
> >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
> >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
> >>
> > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
> >
> > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim
> >
> > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
> local
> > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
>
> Ok, applied. Thanks all.
>
Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
non-DT.
Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
8<---
From: Kukjin Kim
Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
This fixes following in case of non-DT:
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_get_flat_dt_root'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim
---
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
index b919f5f..2110091 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
@@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)
void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */
if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440"))
iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
else
+#endif
iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
if (mach_desc)
8<---
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim , Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson >> wrote: >>> >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440 >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases. >>> >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was: >>>Division by zero in kernel. >>>[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) >>>[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28) >>>[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) >>>[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) >>>[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) >>>[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) >>>[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38) >>>[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) >>>[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078) >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson >> >> >> Thanks Doug. >> >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you. >> > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want, > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my local > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this. Ok, applied. Thanks all. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440 failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases. The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was: Division by zero in kernel. [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078) Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson Thanks Doug. Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in arm-soc, if that's OK with you. Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want, Acked-by: Kukjin Kim Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my local :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this. Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim , Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: Avoid early use of of_machine_is_compatible()
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke > support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too > early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440 > failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use > of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases. > > The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was: > Division by zero in kernel. > [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] > (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) > [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) > [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) > [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] > (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) > [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] > (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) > [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] > (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) > [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] > (time_init+0x28/0x38) > [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] > (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) > [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078) > > Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson Thanks Doug. Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in arm-soc, if that's OK with you. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
