Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arch_timer: Fix code to use physical timers when requested

From: Mark Rutland
Date: Thu Aug 28 2014 - 05:37:00 EST

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:33:31AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 08/27/14 15:33, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is there any reason why the virtual counter can't be read? Maybe we're
> >>>> the hyp and we need to make sure we don't use the virtual timer so that
> >>>> the guest can use it, but that doesn't have any effect on the usage of
> >>>> the virtual counter for the clocksource.
> >>> There are several cases where virtual is unusable -- in particular it
> >>> might not have been configured properly (i.e. the phys/virt offset is
> >>> at a bad value).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Any specifics? It would be nice to say so in the commit text so that
> >> others using such devices know they need this patch. I'm guessing the
> >> firmware can't be fixed?
> Even if we could change things to use a virtual timer in some cases,
> Sonny's patch still fixes a bug. The code as written right now makes
> pretenses about supporting the physical timer, but it doesn't work.
> That should be fixed.

The code does support the physical timer. It does not support the
physical counter (and makes no pretenses that it does).

I had hoped we wouldn't encounter cases where CNTVOFF was hopelessly
ill-configured on a platform, but evidently we have. So we need some
workaround for that.

> > Yeah, there are a few. The big.LITTLE on the Chromebook 2 models have
> > this issue, due to the A7 cluster having an incorrect offset
> > programmed. However, arch timers aren't supported on that SoC in the
> > first place, so it's not a problem in reality.
> >
> > The other known platform is rk3288. It has products out in the wild
> > where firmware updates are unlikely.
> One other reason is that (I'm told) that the virtual offset is lost in
> certain power down conditions (powering down a core, going into S3,
> etc). When we power back up the offset is effectively reset to a
> random value. That means we need something to reprogram the virtual
> timer offset whenever we power things back up.
> If we've got a hypervisor then the hypervisor will definitely be
> involved in powering things back up and it can reset the virtual
> offset. ...but forcing systems to implement a hypervisor (or somehow
> adding an interface for the kernel to call back into firmware) is a
> huge effort and it means more hard-to-update code sitting in firmware.

Not if you boot Linux at hyp, as we've recommended for this precise
reason. That doesn't fix other things like CNTFRQ if the secure
initialisation doesn't poke that, however.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at