Re: [PATCH 4/7] clocksource: arch_timer: Add support for not-fw-configured timer on ARM64

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 15/10/2018 14:12, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> On 2018-10-08 15:17, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> + Mark Rutland
>>
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> On 08/10/18 13:50, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>> Use common infrastructure for ARM Architected Timers erratum to enable
>>> support for systems with broken CPU firmware (timer registers not
>>> properly configured). This mode has been already availabled on ARM
>>> (32bits) architecture. This enables to run Linux kernel on ARM64 boards
>>> using physical architected timers instead of the virtual ones. Examples
>>> of such system with broken firmware are Samsung Exynos5433 SoC based
>>> TM2(e) boards, which is already deployed for years and updating firmware
>>> is not possible.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Â drivers/clocksource/KconfigÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ | 11 +++++++++++
>>> Â drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
>>> Â 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>> index a11f4ba98b05..a30752579b03 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>> @@ -364,6 +364,17 @@ config ARM64_ERRATUM_858921
>>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ The workaround will be dynamically enabled when an affected
>>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ core is detected.
>>> Â +config ARCH_TIMER_REGISTERS_NOT_FW_CONFIGURED
>>> +ÂÂÂ bool "Workaround for arch timer registers not configured by
>>> firmware"
>>> +ÂÂÂ default y
>>> +ÂÂÂ select ARM_ARCH_TIMER_OOL_WORKAROUND
>>> +ÂÂÂ depends on ARM_ARCH_TIMER && ARM64
>>> +ÂÂÂ help
>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂ This option enables a workaround for boards, on which arch timer
>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂ registers are not properly configured by the board firmware.
>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂ The workaround will be dynamically enabled when an affected
>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂ board is detected.
>>> +
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm strongly pushing back on this.
>>
>> This horrible hack was accepted with the express condition that it
>> would be limited to ARMv7 platforms (on the ground that we never
>> really documented the arch timer boot requirements on that version of
>> the architecture), and would never proliferate on arm64. From day 1,
>> we established what the boot protocol was, and we mandated that either:
>>
>> - kernel is entered at EL2 on all CPUs
>> - cntvoff_el2 is zeroed on all CPUs
>>
>> and we've got most people to fix their firmware, or live with the
>> consequences. If these machines cannot receive a non-broken firmware,
>> what are the odds that they will receive a mainline kernel?
> 
> Well, I know that the firmware is broken, but I cannot do anything about it.
> On the other hand updating kernel is still possible and mainline runs fine
> on TM2(e) boards. I will send v2 without this patch then.

I second Marc's opinion.



-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog