Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:11:54 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clk: composite: Also consider .determine_rate for rate + mux composites | From | Robin Murphy <> |
| |
On 2021-11-01 21:59, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2021-11-01 20:58, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >> Hi Guillaume, >> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:19 PM Guillaume Tucker >> <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>> Please see the bisection report below about a boot failure on >>> rk3328-rock64. >>> >>> Reports aren't automatically sent to the public while we're >>> trialing new bisection features on kernelci.org but this one >>> looks valid. >>> >>> Some more details can be found here: >>> >>> https://linux.kernelci.org/test/case/id/617f11f5c157b666fb3358e6/ >>> >>> Here's what appears to be the cause of the problem: >>> >>> [ 0.033465] CPU: CPUs started in inconsistent modes >>> [ 0.033557] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1 >>> [ 0.034432] Internal error: BRK handler: f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP > > What's weird is that that's really just the same WARN that's also > present in 'successful' logs, except for some reason it's behaving as if > the break handler hasn't been registered, despite that having happened > long before we got to smp_init(). At this point we're also still some > way off getting as far as initcalls, so I'm not sure that the clock > driver would be in the picture at all yet. > > Is the bisection repeatable, or is this just random flakiness misleading > things? I'd also note that you need pretty horrifically broken firmware > to hit that warning in the first place, which might cast a bit of doubt > over the trustworthiness of that board altogether.
Ah, on closer inspection it might be entirely repeatable for a given kernel build, but with the behaviour being very sensitive to code/data segment layout changes...
... 23:44:24.457917 Filename '1007060/tftp-deploy-dvdnydcw/kernel/Image'. 23:44:24.460178 Load address: 0x2000000 ... 23:44:27.180962 Bytes transferred = 33681920 (201f200 hex) ... 23:44:27.288135 Filename '1007060/tftp-deploy-dvdnydcw/ramdisk/ramdisk.cpio.gz.uboot'. 23:44:27.288465 Load address: 0x4000000 ...
Yeah, that'll be a problem ;)
Cheers, Robin.
>>> There doesn't appear to be any other platform in KernelCI showing >>> the same issue. >> That's a strange error for the changes from my patch. >> At first glance I don't see any relation to clk-composite code: >> - the call trace doesn't have any references to CCF or rockchip clock >> drivers >> - clk-rk3328.c uses drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-cpu.c to register the CPU >> clock which does not use clk-composite >> >> Chen-Yu has tested this patch (plus [0]) on RK3399 and didn't observe >> any problems. >> So maybe this is a RK3328 specific issue? >> Anyways, I am interested in fixing this issue because reverting is >> becoming more and more complex (since I think we're at eight commits >> which would need to be reverted in total). >> >>> Please let us know if you need help debugging the issue or if you >>> have a fix to try. >> Could you please try [0] which is the second patch in the series which >> finally made it upstream. >> This second patch is not in 5.15 because I believed that it's only >> something to make the code in clk-composite.c more future-proof. It's >> not a condition that I am aware of. >> >> I don't have any Rockchip boards myself. >> So I am thankful for any help I can get. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Martin >> >> >> [0] >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clk/linux.git/commit/?h=clk-next&id=6594988fd625ff0d9a8f90f1788e16185358a3e6 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-rockchip mailing list >> Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip >> > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-rockchip mailing list > Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
| |