On 12/10/2012 10:09 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> Le 10/12/2012 21:19, Gilles Chanteperdrix a écrit :
>> On 12/10/2012 09:02 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>
>>> Le 10/12/2012 19:56, Gilles Chanteperdrix a écrit :
>>>> On 12/10/2012 07:34 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 10/12/2012 18:37, Gilles Chanteperdrix a écrit :
>>>>>> On 12/10/2012 05:31 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 10/12/2012 17:01, Gilles Chanteperdrix a écrit :
>>>>>>>> On 12/10/2012 03:53 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 10/12/2012 00:54, Gilles Chanteperdrix a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2012 09:06 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 07/12/2012 19:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2012 02:28 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Gilles,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have "successfully" patched a 3.0.35 kernel from Freescale with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adeos-ipipe-3.0.36-1.18.11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have -not- applied the adeos-ipipe-3.0.36-arm-1.18-11-pre.patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that showed too much "revert patch detected" errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch should apply cleanly, the question, if you get too many
>>>>>>>>>>>> rejections, it is because you do not apply it to the proper branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it was not.
>>>>>>>>>>> I started with a kernel provided by the module manufacturer. I
>>>>>>>>>>> estimate
>>>>>>>>>>> that this kernel is "almost" a rel_imx_3.0.35_12.09.02, I mean, that
>>>>>>>>>>> I have not found a closer tag than this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My first idea was to attempt to apply the patches to that kernel
>>>>>>>>>>> directly. I was not expecting it would have been simple, and it was
>>>>>>>>>>> actually not. But after a few hours I came to the initial result I
>>>>>>>>>>> said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, I have understand that its purpose was mainly to upgrade to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0.36,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but what is actually the role of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adeos-ipipe-3.0.36-arm-1.18-11-post.patch ? (I applied it).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have explained this in a previous mail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I will seek in the history. I would be nice if the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>> was in the README.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to deal with some rejections but at least the kernel is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> booting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and my application running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the target is very slow, and /proc/xenomai/irq shows that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [timer] irq only comes about every 1 second.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The /proc/interrupts shows an IRQ every 10ms, which was expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since I have CONFIG_HZ=100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am pretty sure that I messed up something in the patch process,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> however I do not know where to start to look for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apply the patches to the proper imx release, and everything should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I did, at last.
>>>>>>>>>>> To do so, I have extracted the BSP from the given 'almost'
>>>>>>>>>>> rel_imx_3.0.35_12.09.02 kernel,
>>>>>>>>>>> taken the rel_imx_3.0.15_12.03.00, applied the patches,
>>>>>>>>>>> and brought back the BSP to the patched kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issues I mentionned are not also present with CONFIG_IPIPE=no,
>>>>>>>>> so it is just that the 3.0.15 kernel does not have everything for my
>>>>>>>>> board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would do what you want to do with git. Checkout the ipipe-3.0-imx6q
>>>>>>>>>> branch from the ipipe-gch.git, then merge it with the vendor branch
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> want to use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure it would work and would be fine with git.
>>>>>>>>> But unfortunalely I do not have access to the repository of the
>>>>>>>>> vendor,
>>>>>>>>> but only to a bz2 snapshot of their kernel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if the right method would be to use git to merge Ipipe to the
>>>>>>>>> 3.0.35_12_09.02, and then bring back the BSP that I have isolated as
>>>>>>>>> a patch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, if the vendor BSP is based on 3.0.35_12_09.02, you should make a
>>>>>>>> diff with that, and try and merge it with the ipipe-3.0-imx6q branch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Done. And success. Thanks. I am running your 3.0.43 kernel with my BSP.
>>>>>>> no more network or reboot slowness issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, htop it saying that CPU0 is at 20% and CPU3 at 12%,
>>>>>>> no application is running. The only thing that I see running is the
>>>>>>> timer interrupt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I still have
>>>>>>> 87: 13 0 0 0 GIC i.MX Timer
>>>>>>> Tick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .. the counter increases very slowly, about 1 every 10 minutes maybe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That does not happen with CONFIG_IPIPE=no
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have CONFIG_LOCALTIMER (and CONFIG_SMP) enabled?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIG_SMP yes,
>>>>> You mean CONFIG_LOCAL_TIMERS ? Yes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you post the disassembly of the mxc_timer_interrupt function?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hope this helps:
>>>
>>> 8006e93c <mxc_timer_interrupt>:
>>> 8006e93c: e3031998 movw r1, #14744 ; 0x3998
>>> 8006e940: e92d4010 push {r4, lr}
>>> 8006e944: e34810c7 movt r1, #32967 ; 0x80c7
>>> 8006e948: e3020a00 movw r0, #10752 ; 0x2a00
>>> 8006e94c: e34800c3 movt r0, #32963 ; 0x80c3
>>> 8006e950: e3a04001 mov r4, #1
>>> 8006e954: e5912000 ldr r2, [r1]
>>> 8006e958: e5903000 ldr r3, [r0]
>>> 8006e95c: e5921008 ldr r1, [r2, #8]
>>> 8006e960: e5824008 str r4, [r2, #8]
>>> 8006e964: e12fff33 blx r3
>>> 8006e968: e1a00004 mov r0, r4
>>> 8006e96c: e8bd8010 pop {r4, pc}
>>>
>>> Tell me if you need more information
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok, this looks compiled as the sources tell us. The thing I do not
>> understand is that since there is another clockevent running (the local
>> timers), the mxc_timer should not be ticking at all.
>
> but is does when CONFIG_IPIPE is NO, (I can see the counter increasing);
> why is it not the case otherwise ?
I am not sure I have a deep enough understanding of the clockevents
system, but from what I understandd, when the local timers are running,
there is no need to run a broadcast timer.
>
> If you do not encounter this issue with your board(s) , does that mean
> that the problem is somewhere in my BSP ?
I may have completely overlooked this issue when testing the imx6q port,
so, I will access the board to have a look at it. Anyway, on the omap4
to which I have direct access, I have:
Tick Device: mode: 0
Broadcast device
Clock Event Device: gp_timer
max_delta_ns: 131072454787401
min_delta_ns: 91553
mult: 140737
shift: 32
mode: 1
next_event: 9223372036854775807 nsecs
set_next_event: <800146a9>
set_mode: <80014805>
event_handler: <8003ec95>
retries: 0
tick_broadcast_mask: 00000000
Tick Device: mode: 0
Per CPU device: 0
Clock Event Device: local_timer
max_delta_ns: 8521760502
min_delta_ns: 1000
mult: 1
shift: 0
mode: 2
next_event: 9223372036854775807 nsecs
set_next_event: <8004d561>
set_mode: <8004d651>
event_handler: <8003eead>
retries: 0
Tick Device: mode: 0
Per CPU device: 1
Clock Event Device: local_timer
max_delta_ns: 8521760502
min_delta_ns: 1000
mult: 1
shift: 0
mode: 2
next_event: 9223372036854775807 nsecs
set_next_event: <8004d561>
set_mode: <8004d651>
event_handler: <8003eead>
retries: 0
mode 1 is "shutdown", so the broadcast timer is stopped,
mode 2 is "periodic", because CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS is off in this
particular configuration
and mode 3 is "one-shot".
Do you have the kernel messages at hand? Maybe they would give us a clue.
--
Gilles.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
