[PATCH 0/2] arm: zynq: Enable global timer

[PATCH 0/2] arm: zynq: Enable global timer

[Soren Brinkmann]

Hi all,

I'm sitting on this for a while and was waiting for Stephen's patch to
get merged somewhere. Unfortunately that didn't happen yet.
The patch to enable the global timer is pretty straight forward.
Stephen's patch is the result of this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/649
and required to prevent the global_timer from becoming the broadcast
device, since the system will hang otherwise.

Soren Brinkmann (1):
  arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

Stephen Boyd (1):
  tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
 kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c     | 3 +++
 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)

-- 
1.8.4

[PATCH 0/2] arm: zynq: Enable global timer

[Soren Brinkmann]

Hi all,

I'm sitting on this for a while and was waiting for Stephen's patch to
get merged somewhere. Unfortunately that didn't happen yet.
The patch to enable the global timer is pretty straight forward.
Stephen's patch is the result of this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/649
and required to prevent the global_timer from becoming the broadcast
device, since the system will hang otherwise.

Soren Brinkmann (1):
  arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

Stephen Boyd (1):
  tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
 kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c     | 3 +++
 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)

-- 
1.8.4

[PATCH 0/2] arm: zynq: Enable global timer

[Soren Brinkmann]

Hi all,

I'm sitting on this for a while and was waiting for Stephen's patch to
get merged somewhere. Unfortunately that didn't happen yet.
The patch to enable the global timer is pretty straight forward.
Stephen's patch is the result of this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/649
and required to prevent the global_timer from becoming the broadcast
device, since the system will hang otherwise.

Soren Brinkmann (1):
  arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

Stephen Boyd (1):
  tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
 kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c     | 3 +++
 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)

-- 
1.8.4

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Soren Brinkmann]

From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>

On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
(or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
offline).

Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).

Reported-by: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
---
 kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
index 218bcb5..d3539e5 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
@@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
 	    !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
 		return false;
 
+	if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
+		return false;
+
 	return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
 }
 
-- 
1.8.4

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Soren Brinkmann]

From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>

On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
(or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
offline).

Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).

Reported-by: S?ren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
---
 kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
index 218bcb5..d3539e5 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
@@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
 	    !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
 		return false;
 
+	if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
+		return false;
+
 	return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
 }
 
-- 
1.8.4

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> 
> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> offline).
> 
> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).

Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
causing failure here.

Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
device and check for it.

Thanks,

	tglx

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> 
> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> offline).
> 
> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).

Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
causing failure here.

Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
device and check for it.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > 
> > On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> > the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> > the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> > become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> > because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> > into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> > could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> > (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> > offline).
> > 
> > Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> > broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> > it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> > until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> 
> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> causing failure here.
> 
> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> device and check for it.

I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
@@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
        int cpu = smp_processor_id();
 
        clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
-       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
+       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
+               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
        clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
        clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
        clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
index 0857922..493aa02 100644
--- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
+++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
  * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
  */
 #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
+#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
 
 /**
  * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
@@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
                                        struct clock_event_device *newdev)
 {
        if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
-           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
+           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
+           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
                return false;
 
        if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
            !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
                return false;
 
-       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
-               return false;
-
        return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
 }

If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.

	Thanks,
	Sören

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > 
> > On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> > the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> > the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> > become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> > because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> > into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> > could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> > (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> > offline).
> > 
> > Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> > broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> > it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> > until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> 
> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> causing failure here.
> 
> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> device and check for it.

I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
@@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
        int cpu = smp_processor_id();
 
        clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
-       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
+       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
+               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
        clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
        clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
        clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
index 0857922..493aa02 100644
--- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
+++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
  * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
  */
 #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
+#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
 
 /**
  * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
@@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
                                        struct clock_event_device *newdev)
 {
        if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
-           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
+           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
+           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
                return false;
 
        if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
            !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
                return false;
 
-       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
-               return false;
-
        return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
 }

If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.

	Thanks,
	S?ren

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > 
> > On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> > the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> > the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> > become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> > because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> > into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> > could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> > (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> > offline).
> > 
> > Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> > broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> > it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> > until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> 
> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> causing failure here.
> 
> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> device and check for it.

I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
@@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
        int cpu = smp_processor_id();
 
        clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
-       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
+       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
+               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
        clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
        clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
        clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
index 0857922..493aa02 100644
--- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
+++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
  * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
  */
 #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
+#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
 
 /**
  * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
@@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
                                        struct clock_event_device *newdev)
 {
        if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
-           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
+           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
+           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
                return false;
 
        if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
            !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
                return false;
 
-       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
-               return false;
-
        return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
 }

If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.

	Thanks,
	Sören



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2531 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
>         int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  
>         clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
> -       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
> +       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
> +               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
>         clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
>         clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
>         clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> index 0857922..493aa02 100644
> --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
> +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
>   * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
>   */
>  #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
> +#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
>  
>  /**
>   * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> @@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
>                                         struct clock_event_device *newdev)
>  {
>         if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
> -           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
> +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
> +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
>                 return false;
>  
>         if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
>             !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
>                 return false;
>  
> -       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
> -               return false;
> -
>         return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
>  }
> 
> If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.

Looks good to me. The last junk of the patch won't apply on mainline,
but thats the least of my worries. :)

Thanks,

	tglx

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
>         int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  
>         clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
> -       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
> +       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
> +               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
>         clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
>         clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
>         clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> index 0857922..493aa02 100644
> --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
> +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
>   * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
>   */
>  #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
> +#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
>  
>  /**
>   * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> @@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
>                                         struct clock_event_device *newdev)
>  {
>         if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
> -           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
> +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
> +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
>                 return false;
>  
>         if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
>             !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
>                 return false;
>  
> -       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
> -               return false;
> -
>         return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
>  }
> 
> If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.

Looks good to me. The last junk of the patch won't apply on mainline,
but thats the least of my worries. :)

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2531 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
>         int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  
>         clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
> -       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
> +       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
> +               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
>         clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
>         clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
>         clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> index 0857922..493aa02 100644
> --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
> +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
>   * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
>   */
>  #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
> +#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
>  
>  /**
>   * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> @@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
>                                         struct clock_event_device *newdev)
>  {
>         if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
> -           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
> +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
> +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
>                 return false;
>  
>         if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
>             !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
>                 return false;
>  
> -       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
> -               return false;
> -
>         return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
>  }
> 
> If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.

Looks good to me. The last junk of the patch won't apply on mainline,
but thats the least of my worries. :)

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:45:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
> > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
> >         int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >  
> >         clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
> > -       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
> > +       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
> > +               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
> >         clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
> >         clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
> >         clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > index 0857922..493aa02 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
> >   * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
> >   */
> >  #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
> > +#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > @@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
> >                                         struct clock_event_device *newdev)
> >  {
> >         if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
> > -           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
> > +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
> > +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
> >                 return false;
> >  
> >         if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
> >             !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
> >                 return false;
> >  
> > -       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
> > -               return false;
> > -
> >         return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
> >  }
> > 
> > If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.
> 
> Looks good to me. The last junk of the patch won't apply on mainline,
> but thats the least of my worries. :)

Of course. I'll split this into smaller chunks and send out a v2.

	Thanks,
	Sören

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:45:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
> > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
> >         int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >  
> >         clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
> > -       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
> > +       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
> > +               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
> >         clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
> >         clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
> >         clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > index 0857922..493aa02 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
> >   * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
> >   */
> >  #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
> > +#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > @@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
> >                                         struct clock_event_device *newdev)
> >  {
> >         if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
> > -           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
> > +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
> > +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
> >                 return false;
> >  
> >         if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
> >             !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
> >                 return false;
> >  
> > -       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
> > -               return false;
> > -
> >         return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
> >  }
> > 
> > If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.
> 
> Looks good to me. The last junk of the patch won't apply on mainline,
> but thats the least of my worries. :)

Of course. I'll split this into smaller chunks and send out a v2.

	Thanks,
	S?ren

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:45:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I gave it a shot. Is this what you imagine:
> > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > index b66c1f3..c639b1a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ static int gt_clockevents_init(struct clock_event_device *clk)
> >         int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >  
> >         clk->name = "arm_global_timer";
> > -       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
> > +       clk->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT |
> > +               CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU;
> >         clk->set_mode = gt_clockevent_set_mode;
> >         clk->set_next_event = gt_clockevent_set_next_event;
> >         clk->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > index 0857922..493aa02 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/clockchips.h
> > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum clock_event_mode {
> >   * Core shall set the interrupt affinity dynamically in broadcast mode
> >   */
> >  #define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ          0x000020
> > +#define CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU          0x000040
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * struct clock_event_device - clock event device descriptor
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > index d3539e5..de4c5d8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > @@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static bool tick_check_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
> >                                         struct clock_event_device *newdev)
> >  {
> >         if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) ||
> > -           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
> > +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) ||
> > +           (newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU))
> >                 return false;
> >  
> >         if (tick_broadcast_device.mode == TICKDEV_MODE_ONESHOT &&
> >             !(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
> >                 return false;
> >  
> > -       if (cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())))
> > -               return false;
> > -
> >         return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating;
> >  }
> > 
> > If this is the way to go, I can prepare this in a v2.
> 
> Looks good to me. The last junk of the patch won't apply on mainline,
> but thats the least of my worries. :)

Of course. I'll split this into smaller chunks and send out a v2.

	Thanks,
	Sören



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>>
>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
>> offline).
>>
>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> 
> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> causing failure here.
> 
> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> device and check for it.

It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.

I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?

[PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states

  -- Daniel

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ 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

  * English - detected
  * English
  * French

  * English
  * French

 <javascript:void(0);>

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>>
>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
>> offline).
>>
>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> 
> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> causing failure here.
> 
> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> device and check for it.

It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.

I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?

[PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states

  -- Daniel

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? 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

  * English - detected
  * English
  * French

  * English
  * French

 <javascript:void(0);>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
>> offline).
>>
>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> 
> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> causing failure here.
> 
> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> device and check for it.

It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.

I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?

[PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states

  -- Daniel

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ 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

  * English - detected
  * English
  * French

  * English
  * French

 <javascript:void(0);>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Preeti U Murthy]

Hi Soren,

On 09/13/2013 03:50 PM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> So the patch that Daniel points out http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ,
> enables broadcast functionality
> without using an external global clock device. It uses one of the per cpu
> clock devices to enable the broadcast functionality.
> 
> The way it achieves this is by creating a pseudo clock device and
> associating it with one of the cpus clock device and
> by having a hrtimer queued on the same cpu. This pseudo clock device acts
> as the broadcast device, and the
>  per cpu clock device that it is associated with acts as the broadcast
> source.
> 
> The disadvantages that Soren mentions in having a per cpu clock device as
> the broadcast source can be overcome
> by following the approach proposed in this patch n the way described below:
> 
> 1. What if the cpu, whose clock device is the broadcast source goes offline?
> 
> The solution that the above patch proposes is associate the pseudo clock
> device with another cpu and move the hrtimer
> whose function is explained in the next point to another cpu. The broadcast
> functionality continues to remain active transparently.
> 
> 2. The cpu that requires broadcast functionality is different from the cpu
> whose clock device is the broadcast source.
> So how will the former cpu program/control the clock device of the latter
> cpu?
> 
> The above patch queues a hrtimer on the cpu whose clock device is the
> broadcast source, which expires at
> max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event), where tick_broadcast_period
> is what we define and dev is the
> pseudo device whose next event is set by the broadcast framework.
> 
> On expiry of this hrtimer, do broadcast handling and reprogram the hrtimer
> with same as above,
> max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event).
> 
> This ensures that a cpu that requires broadcast function to be activated
> need not program the broadcast source,
> which also happens to be a per cpu clock device. The hrtimer queued on the
> cpu whose clock device is the
> broadcast source takes care of when to do broadcast handling.
> tick_broadcast_period ensures that we do
> not miss wakeups. This is introduced to overcome the constraint of a cpu
> not being able to program the clock
> device of another cpu.
> 
> Soren, do let me know if the above approach described in the patch has not
> addressed any of the challenges
> that you see with having a  per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> 
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>>>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>>>>
>>>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
>>>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
>>>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
>>>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
>>>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
>>>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
>>>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
>>>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
>>>> offline).
>>>>
>>>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
>>>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
>>>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
>>>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
>>>
>>> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
>>> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
>>> causing failure here.
>>>
>>> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
>>> device and check for it.
>>
>> It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.
>>
>> I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?
>>
>> [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states
>>
>>   -- Daniel

So the point I am trying to make is that the fix that you have proposed
on this thread is valid. It is difficult to ensure that a per cpu clock
device doubles up as the broadcast source without significant code
changes to the current broadcast code and the timer code.

But the patch [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for
deep idle states, attempts to overcome the disadvantage on certain
architectures of not having an external clock device to perform
broadcast *without* significant code changes in broadcast or timer.

This patch does not conflict with what you are proposing in this thread
of having a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU, since the pseudo clock
device that the patch introduces will not have this flag set anyway.

So ideally architectures, without having a planned infrastructure in
them cannot nominate their per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
And if they do have some infrastructure to support a per cpu clock
device as broadcast source, they should ensure that the device passes
your test as is proposed in this patch. So your fix is valid IMHO. That
said it is still possible to manage without an external clock device for
performing broadcast.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Preeti U Murthy]

Hi Soren,

On 09/13/2013 03:50 PM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> So the patch that Daniel points out http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ,
> enables broadcast functionality
> without using an external global clock device. It uses one of the per cpu
> clock devices to enable the broadcast functionality.
> 
> The way it achieves this is by creating a pseudo clock device and
> associating it with one of the cpus clock device and
> by having a hrtimer queued on the same cpu. This pseudo clock device acts
> as the broadcast device, and the
>  per cpu clock device that it is associated with acts as the broadcast
> source.
> 
> The disadvantages that Soren mentions in having a per cpu clock device as
> the broadcast source can be overcome
> by following the approach proposed in this patch n the way described below:
> 
> 1. What if the cpu, whose clock device is the broadcast source goes offline?
> 
> The solution that the above patch proposes is associate the pseudo clock
> device with another cpu and move the hrtimer
> whose function is explained in the next point to another cpu. The broadcast
> functionality continues to remain active transparently.
> 
> 2. The cpu that requires broadcast functionality is different from the cpu
> whose clock device is the broadcast source.
> So how will the former cpu program/control the clock device of the latter
> cpu?
> 
> The above patch queues a hrtimer on the cpu whose clock device is the
> broadcast source, which expires at
> max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event), where tick_broadcast_period
> is what we define and dev is the
> pseudo device whose next event is set by the broadcast framework.
> 
> On expiry of this hrtimer, do broadcast handling and reprogram the hrtimer
> with same as above,
> max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event).
> 
> This ensures that a cpu that requires broadcast function to be activated
> need not program the broadcast source,
> which also happens to be a per cpu clock device. The hrtimer queued on the
> cpu whose clock device is the
> broadcast source takes care of when to do broadcast handling.
> tick_broadcast_period ensures that we do
> not miss wakeups. This is introduced to overcome the constraint of a cpu
> not being able to program the clock
> device of another cpu.
> 
> Soren, do let me know if the above approach described in the patch has not
> addressed any of the challenges
> that you see with having a  per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> 
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>>>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>>>>
>>>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
>>>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
>>>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
>>>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
>>>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
>>>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
>>>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
>>>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
>>>> offline).
>>>>
>>>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
>>>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
>>>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
>>>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
>>>
>>> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
>>> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
>>> causing failure here.
>>>
>>> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
>>> device and check for it.
>>
>> It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.
>>
>> I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?
>>
>> [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states
>>
>>   -- Daniel

So the point I am trying to make is that the fix that you have proposed
on this thread is valid. It is difficult to ensure that a per cpu clock
device doubles up as the broadcast source without significant code
changes to the current broadcast code and the timer code.

But the patch [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for
deep idle states, attempts to overcome the disadvantage on certain
architectures of not having an external clock device to perform
broadcast *without* significant code changes in broadcast or timer.

This patch does not conflict with what you are proposing in this thread
of having a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU, since the pseudo clock
device that the patch introduces will not have this flag set anyway.

So ideally architectures, without having a planned infrastructure in
them cannot nominate their per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
And if they do have some infrastructure to support a per cpu clock
device as broadcast source, they should ensure that the device passes
your test as is proposed in this patch. So your fix is valid IMHO. That
said it is still possible to manage without an external clock device for
performing broadcast.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Preeti U Murthy]

Hi Soren,

On 09/13/2013 03:50 PM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> So the patch that Daniel points out http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ,
> enables broadcast functionality
> without using an external global clock device. It uses one of the per cpu
> clock devices to enable the broadcast functionality.
> 
> The way it achieves this is by creating a pseudo clock device and
> associating it with one of the cpus clock device and
> by having a hrtimer queued on the same cpu. This pseudo clock device acts
> as the broadcast device, and the
>  per cpu clock device that it is associated with acts as the broadcast
> source.
> 
> The disadvantages that Soren mentions in having a per cpu clock device as
> the broadcast source can be overcome
> by following the approach proposed in this patch n the way described below:
> 
> 1. What if the cpu, whose clock device is the broadcast source goes offline?
> 
> The solution that the above patch proposes is associate the pseudo clock
> device with another cpu and move the hrtimer
> whose function is explained in the next point to another cpu. The broadcast
> functionality continues to remain active transparently.
> 
> 2. The cpu that requires broadcast functionality is different from the cpu
> whose clock device is the broadcast source.
> So how will the former cpu program/control the clock device of the latter
> cpu?
> 
> The above patch queues a hrtimer on the cpu whose clock device is the
> broadcast source, which expires at
> max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event), where tick_broadcast_period
> is what we define and dev is the
> pseudo device whose next event is set by the broadcast framework.
> 
> On expiry of this hrtimer, do broadcast handling and reprogram the hrtimer
> with same as above,
> max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event).
> 
> This ensures that a cpu that requires broadcast function to be activated
> need not program the broadcast source,
> which also happens to be a per cpu clock device. The hrtimer queued on the
> cpu whose clock device is the
> broadcast source takes care of when to do broadcast handling.
> tick_broadcast_period ensures that we do
> not miss wakeups. This is introduced to overcome the constraint of a cpu
> not being able to program the clock
> device of another cpu.
> 
> Soren, do let me know if the above approach described in the patch has not
> addressed any of the challenges
> that you see with having a  per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> 
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>>>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>
>>>>
>>>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
>>>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
>>>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
>>>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
>>>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
>>>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
>>>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
>>>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
>>>> offline).
>>>>
>>>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
>>>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
>>>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
>>>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
>>>
>>> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
>>> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
>>> causing failure here.
>>>
>>> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
>>> device and check for it.
>>
>> It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.
>>
>> I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?
>>
>> [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states
>>
>>   -- Daniel

So the point I am trying to make is that the fix that you have proposed
on this thread is valid. It is difficult to ensure that a per cpu clock
device doubles up as the broadcast source without significant code
changes to the current broadcast code and the timer code.

But the patch [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for
deep idle states, attempts to overcome the disadvantage on certain
architectures of not having an external clock device to perform
broadcast *without* significant code changes in broadcast or timer.

This patch does not conflict with what you are proposing in this thread
of having a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU, since the pseudo clock
device that the patch introduces will not have this flag set anyway.

So ideally architectures, without having a planned infrastructure in
them cannot nominate their per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
And if they do have some infrastructure to support a per cpu clock
device as broadcast source, they should ensure that the device passes
your test as is proposed in this patch. So your fix is valid IMHO. That
said it is still possible to manage without an external clock device for
performing broadcast.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

Hi Preeti,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:09:46PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Soren,
> 
> On 09/13/2013 03:50 PM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > So the patch that Daniel points out http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ,
> > enables broadcast functionality
> > without using an external global clock device. It uses one of the per cpu
> > clock devices to enable the broadcast functionality.
> > 
> > The way it achieves this is by creating a pseudo clock device and
> > associating it with one of the cpus clock device and
> > by having a hrtimer queued on the same cpu. This pseudo clock device acts
> > as the broadcast device, and the
> >  per cpu clock device that it is associated with acts as the broadcast
> > source.
> > 
> > The disadvantages that Soren mentions in having a per cpu clock device as
> > the broadcast source can be overcome
> > by following the approach proposed in this patch n the way described below:
> > 
> > 1. What if the cpu, whose clock device is the broadcast source goes offline?
> > 
> > The solution that the above patch proposes is associate the pseudo clock
> > device with another cpu and move the hrtimer
> > whose function is explained in the next point to another cpu. The broadcast
> > functionality continues to remain active transparently.
> > 
> > 2. The cpu that requires broadcast functionality is different from the cpu
> > whose clock device is the broadcast source.
> > So how will the former cpu program/control the clock device of the latter
> > cpu?
> > 
> > The above patch queues a hrtimer on the cpu whose clock device is the
> > broadcast source, which expires at
> > max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event), where tick_broadcast_period
> > is what we define and dev is the
> > pseudo device whose next event is set by the broadcast framework.
> > 
> > On expiry of this hrtimer, do broadcast handling and reprogram the hrtimer
> > with same as above,
> > max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event).
> > 
> > This ensures that a cpu that requires broadcast function to be activated
> > need not program the broadcast source,
> > which also happens to be a per cpu clock device. The hrtimer queued on the
> > cpu whose clock device is the
> > broadcast source takes care of when to do broadcast handling.
> > tick_broadcast_period ensures that we do
> > not miss wakeups. This is introduced to overcome the constraint of a cpu
> > not being able to program the clock
> > device of another cpu.
> > 
> > Soren, do let me know if the above approach described in the patch has not
> > addressed any of the challenges
> > that you see with having a  per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Preeti U Murthy
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>wrote:
> > 
> >> On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> >>>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> >>>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> >>>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> >>>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> >>>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> >>>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> >>>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> >>>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> >>>> offline).
> >>>>
> >>>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> >>>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> >>>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> >>>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> >>>
> >>> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> >>> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> >>> causing failure here.
> >>>
> >>> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> >>> device and check for it.
> >>
> >> It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.
> >>
> >> I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?
> >>
> >> [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states
> >>
> >>   -- Daniel
> 
> So the point I am trying to make is that the fix that you have proposed
> on this thread is valid. It is difficult to ensure that a per cpu clock
> device doubles up as the broadcast source without significant code
> changes to the current broadcast code and the timer code.
> 
> But the patch [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for
> deep idle states, attempts to overcome the disadvantage on certain
> architectures of not having an external clock device to perform
> broadcast *without* significant code changes in broadcast or timer.
> 
> This patch does not conflict with what you are proposing in this thread
> of having a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU, since the pseudo clock
> device that the patch introduces will not have this flag set anyway.
> 
> So ideally architectures, without having a planned infrastructure in
> them cannot nominate their per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> And if they do have some infrastructure to support a per cpu clock
> device as broadcast source, they should ensure that the device passes
> your test as is proposed in this patch. So your fix is valid IMHO. That
> said it is still possible to manage without an external clock device for
> performing broadcast.

Thanks for the explanation but now I'm a little confused. That's a lot of
details and I'm lacking the in depth knowledge to fully understand
everything.

Is it correct to say, that your patch series enables per cpu devices to
be the broadcast device - for PPC?
And that would mean, that even though you have a per cpu device, you'd
deliberately not set the FEAT_PERCPU flag, because on PPC a per cpu
timer is a valid broadcast device?

Assuming that is not going into an utterly wrong direction: How would we
close on this one? AFAIK, ARM does not have this capability and I guess
it won't be added. So, should I go forward with the fix proposed by
Thomas? Should we rename the FEAT_PERCPU flag to something else, given
that PPC may use per cpu devices for broadcasting and the sole usage of
that flag is to prevent such a device from becoming the broadcast device?

	Thanks,
	Sören

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

Hi Preeti,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:09:46PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Soren,
> 
> On 09/13/2013 03:50 PM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > So the patch that Daniel points out http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ,
> > enables broadcast functionality
> > without using an external global clock device. It uses one of the per cpu
> > clock devices to enable the broadcast functionality.
> > 
> > The way it achieves this is by creating a pseudo clock device and
> > associating it with one of the cpus clock device and
> > by having a hrtimer queued on the same cpu. This pseudo clock device acts
> > as the broadcast device, and the
> >  per cpu clock device that it is associated with acts as the broadcast
> > source.
> > 
> > The disadvantages that Soren mentions in having a per cpu clock device as
> > the broadcast source can be overcome
> > by following the approach proposed in this patch n the way described below:
> > 
> > 1. What if the cpu, whose clock device is the broadcast source goes offline?
> > 
> > The solution that the above patch proposes is associate the pseudo clock
> > device with another cpu and move the hrtimer
> > whose function is explained in the next point to another cpu. The broadcast
> > functionality continues to remain active transparently.
> > 
> > 2. The cpu that requires broadcast functionality is different from the cpu
> > whose clock device is the broadcast source.
> > So how will the former cpu program/control the clock device of the latter
> > cpu?
> > 
> > The above patch queues a hrtimer on the cpu whose clock device is the
> > broadcast source, which expires at
> > max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event), where tick_broadcast_period
> > is what we define and dev is the
> > pseudo device whose next event is set by the broadcast framework.
> > 
> > On expiry of this hrtimer, do broadcast handling and reprogram the hrtimer
> > with same as above,
> > max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event).
> > 
> > This ensures that a cpu that requires broadcast function to be activated
> > need not program the broadcast source,
> > which also happens to be a per cpu clock device. The hrtimer queued on the
> > cpu whose clock device is the
> > broadcast source takes care of when to do broadcast handling.
> > tick_broadcast_period ensures that we do
> > not miss wakeups. This is introduced to overcome the constraint of a cpu
> > not being able to program the clock
> > device of another cpu.
> > 
> > Soren, do let me know if the above approach described in the patch has not
> > addressed any of the challenges
> > that you see with having a  per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Preeti U Murthy
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>wrote:
> > 
> >> On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> >>>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> >>>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> >>>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> >>>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> >>>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> >>>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> >>>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> >>>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> >>>> offline).
> >>>>
> >>>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> >>>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> >>>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> >>>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> >>>
> >>> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> >>> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> >>> causing failure here.
> >>>
> >>> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> >>> device and check for it.
> >>
> >> It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.
> >>
> >> I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?
> >>
> >> [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states
> >>
> >>   -- Daniel
> 
> So the point I am trying to make is that the fix that you have proposed
> on this thread is valid. It is difficult to ensure that a per cpu clock
> device doubles up as the broadcast source without significant code
> changes to the current broadcast code and the timer code.
> 
> But the patch [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for
> deep idle states, attempts to overcome the disadvantage on certain
> architectures of not having an external clock device to perform
> broadcast *without* significant code changes in broadcast or timer.
> 
> This patch does not conflict with what you are proposing in this thread
> of having a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU, since the pseudo clock
> device that the patch introduces will not have this flag set anyway.
> 
> So ideally architectures, without having a planned infrastructure in
> them cannot nominate their per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> And if they do have some infrastructure to support a per cpu clock
> device as broadcast source, they should ensure that the device passes
> your test as is proposed in this patch. So your fix is valid IMHO. That
> said it is still possible to manage without an external clock device for
> performing broadcast.

Thanks for the explanation but now I'm a little confused. That's a lot of
details and I'm lacking the in depth knowledge to fully understand
everything.

Is it correct to say, that your patch series enables per cpu devices to
be the broadcast device - for PPC?
And that would mean, that even though you have a per cpu device, you'd
deliberately not set the FEAT_PERCPU flag, because on PPC a per cpu
timer is a valid broadcast device?

Assuming that is not going into an utterly wrong direction: How would we
close on this one? AFAIK, ARM does not have this capability and I guess
it won't be added. So, should I go forward with the fix proposed by
Thomas? Should we rename the FEAT_PERCPU flag to something else, given
that PPC may use per cpu devices for broadcasting and the sole usage of
that flag is to prevent such a device from becoming the broadcast device?

	Thanks,
	S?ren

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Sören Brinkmann]

Hi Preeti,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:09:46PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Soren,
> 
> On 09/13/2013 03:50 PM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > So the patch that Daniel points out http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ,
> > enables broadcast functionality
> > without using an external global clock device. It uses one of the per cpu
> > clock devices to enable the broadcast functionality.
> > 
> > The way it achieves this is by creating a pseudo clock device and
> > associating it with one of the cpus clock device and
> > by having a hrtimer queued on the same cpu. This pseudo clock device acts
> > as the broadcast device, and the
> >  per cpu clock device that it is associated with acts as the broadcast
> > source.
> > 
> > The disadvantages that Soren mentions in having a per cpu clock device as
> > the broadcast source can be overcome
> > by following the approach proposed in this patch n the way described below:
> > 
> > 1. What if the cpu, whose clock device is the broadcast source goes offline?
> > 
> > The solution that the above patch proposes is associate the pseudo clock
> > device with another cpu and move the hrtimer
> > whose function is explained in the next point to another cpu. The broadcast
> > functionality continues to remain active transparently.
> > 
> > 2. The cpu that requires broadcast functionality is different from the cpu
> > whose clock device is the broadcast source.
> > So how will the former cpu program/control the clock device of the latter
> > cpu?
> > 
> > The above patch queues a hrtimer on the cpu whose clock device is the
> > broadcast source, which expires at
> > max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event), where tick_broadcast_period
> > is what we define and dev is the
> > pseudo device whose next event is set by the broadcast framework.
> > 
> > On expiry of this hrtimer, do broadcast handling and reprogram the hrtimer
> > with same as above,
> > max(tick_broadcast_period,  dev->next_event).
> > 
> > This ensures that a cpu that requires broadcast function to be activated
> > need not program the broadcast source,
> > which also happens to be a per cpu clock device. The hrtimer queued on the
> > cpu whose clock device is the
> > broadcast source takes care of when to do broadcast handling.
> > tick_broadcast_period ensures that we do
> > not miss wakeups. This is introduced to overcome the constraint of a cpu
> > not being able to program the clock
> > device of another cpu.
> > 
> > Soren, do let me know if the above approach described in the patch has not
> > addressed any of the challenges
> > that you see with having a  per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Preeti U Murthy
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>wrote:
> > 
> >> On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> >>>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> >>>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> >>>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> >>>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> >>>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> >>>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> >>>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> >>>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> >>>> offline).
> >>>>
> >>>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> >>>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> >>>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> >>>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> >>>
> >>> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> >>> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> >>> causing failure here.
> >>>
> >>> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> >>> device and check for it.
> >>
> >> It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.
> >>
> >> I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?
> >>
> >> [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states
> >>
> >>   -- Daniel
> 
> So the point I am trying to make is that the fix that you have proposed
> on this thread is valid. It is difficult to ensure that a per cpu clock
> device doubles up as the broadcast source without significant code
> changes to the current broadcast code and the timer code.
> 
> But the patch [PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for
> deep idle states, attempts to overcome the disadvantage on certain
> architectures of not having an external clock device to perform
> broadcast *without* significant code changes in broadcast or timer.
> 
> This patch does not conflict with what you are proposing in this thread
> of having a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU, since the pseudo clock
> device that the patch introduces will not have this flag set anyway.
> 
> So ideally architectures, without having a planned infrastructure in
> them cannot nominate their per cpu clock device as the broadcast source.
> And if they do have some infrastructure to support a per cpu clock
> device as broadcast source, they should ensure that the device passes
> your test as is proposed in this patch. So your fix is valid IMHO. That
> said it is still possible to manage without an external clock device for
> performing broadcast.

Thanks for the explanation but now I'm a little confused. That's a lot of
details and I'm lacking the in depth knowledge to fully understand
everything.

Is it correct to say, that your patch series enables per cpu devices to
be the broadcast device - for PPC?
And that would mean, that even though you have a per cpu device, you'd
deliberately not set the FEAT_PERCPU flag, because on PPC a per cpu
timer is a valid broadcast device?

Assuming that is not going into an utterly wrong direction: How would we
close on this one? AFAIK, ARM does not have this capability and I guess
it won't be added. So, should I go forward with the fix proposed by
Thomas? Should we rename the FEAT_PERCPU flag to something else, given
that PPC may use per cpu devices for broadcasting and the sole usage of
that flag is to prevent such a device from becoming the broadcast device?

	Thanks,
	Sören

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Preeti U Murthy]

Hi Soren,

On 09/13/2013 09:53 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi Preeti,
> Thanks for the explanation but now I'm a little confused. That's a lot of
> details and I'm lacking the in depth knowledge to fully understand
> everything.
> 
> Is it correct to say, that your patch series enables per cpu devices to
> be the broadcast device - for PPC?

Not really. We have a pseudo clock device, which is registered as the
broadcast device. This clock device has all the features of an external
clock device that the broadcast framework expects from a broadcast
device like !CLOCK_FEAT_C3STOP & !FEAT_PERCPU that you introduce in your
patch.

It as though we trick the broadcast framework into believing that we
have an external device, while in reality the pseudo device is just a dummy.

So if this is a pseudo device, which gets registered as the broadcast
device, how do we program it to handle broadcast events? That is where
the per cpu device steps in. It serves as the clock source to this
pseudo device. Meaning we program the per cpu device for the next
broadcast event using a hrtimer framework that we introduce, which calls
pseudo_dev->event_handler on expiry. This is nothing but the broadcast
handler.

Therefore we are able to manage broadcast without having to have an
explicit clock device for the purpose.

> And that would mean, that even though you have a per cpu device, you'd
> deliberately not set the FEAT_PERCPU flag, because on PPC a per cpu
> timer is a valid broadcast device?

No we would set the FEAT_PERCPU for the per cpu device on PPC. As I
mentioned above this is not going to be registered as the broadcast
device. We would however not set this flag for the pseudo device, that
we register as the broadcast device.

> 
> Assuming that is not going into an utterly wrong direction: How would we
> close on this one? AFAIK, ARM does not have this capability and I guess
> it won't be added. So, should I go forward with the fix proposed by
> Thomas? Should we rename the FEAT_PERCPU flag to something else, given
> that PPC may use per cpu devices for broadcasting and the sole usage of
> that flag is to prevent such a device from becoming the broadcast device?

You can go ahead with this fix because as explained above, when we
register a broadcast device we use a pseudo device which has the
features that the broadcast framework approves. The per cpu device does
not register itself with the broadcast framework. It merely programs
itself for the next broadcast event. Hence this fix will not hinder the
broadcast support on PPC.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Sören
> 
> 
Regards
Preeti U Murthy

[PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Preeti U Murthy]

Hi Soren,

On 09/13/2013 09:53 PM, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi Preeti,
> Thanks for the explanation but now I'm a little confused. That's a lot of
> details and I'm lacking the in depth knowledge to fully understand
> everything.
> 
> Is it correct to say, that your patch series enables per cpu devices to
> be the broadcast device - for PPC?

Not really. We have a pseudo clock device, which is registered as the
broadcast device. This clock device has all the features of an external
clock device that the broadcast framework expects from a broadcast
device like !CLOCK_FEAT_C3STOP & !FEAT_PERCPU that you introduce in your
patch.

It as though we trick the broadcast framework into believing that we
have an external device, while in reality the pseudo device is just a dummy.

So if this is a pseudo device, which gets registered as the broadcast
device, how do we program it to handle broadcast events? That is where
the per cpu device steps in. It serves as the clock source to this
pseudo device. Meaning we program the per cpu device for the next
broadcast event using a hrtimer framework that we introduce, which calls
pseudo_dev->event_handler on expiry. This is nothing but the broadcast
handler.

Therefore we are able to manage broadcast without having to have an
explicit clock device for the purpose.

> And that would mean, that even though you have a per cpu device, you'd
> deliberately not set the FEAT_PERCPU flag, because on PPC a per cpu
> timer is a valid broadcast device?

No we would set the FEAT_PERCPU for the per cpu device on PPC. As I
mentioned above this is not going to be registered as the broadcast
device. We would however not set this flag for the pseudo device, that
we register as the broadcast device.

> 
> Assuming that is not going into an utterly wrong direction: How would we
> close on this one? AFAIK, ARM does not have this capability and I guess
> it won't be added. So, should I go forward with the fix proposed by
> Thomas? Should we rename the FEAT_PERCPU flag to something else, given
> that PPC may use per cpu devices for broadcasting and the sole usage of
> that flag is to prevent such a device from becoming the broadcast device?

You can go ahead with this fix because as explained above, when we
register a broadcast device we use a pseudo device which has the
features that the broadcast framework approves. The per cpu device does
not register itself with the broadcast framework. It merely programs
itself for the next broadcast event. Hence this fix will not hinder the
broadcast support on PPC.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	S?ren
> 
> 
Regards
Preeti U Murthy

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

[Preeti U Murthy]

Hi Soren,

On 09/13/2013 09:53 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi Preeti,
> Thanks for the explanation but now I'm a little confused. That's a lot of
> details and I'm lacking the in depth knowledge to fully understand
> everything.
> 
> Is it correct to say, that your patch series enables per cpu devices to
> be the broadcast device - for PPC?

Not really. We have a pseudo clock device, which is registered as the
broadcast device. This clock device has all the features of an external
clock device that the broadcast framework expects from a broadcast
device like !CLOCK_FEAT_C3STOP & !FEAT_PERCPU that you introduce in your
patch.

It as though we trick the broadcast framework into believing that we
have an external device, while in reality the pseudo device is just a dummy.

So if this is a pseudo device, which gets registered as the broadcast
device, how do we program it to handle broadcast events? That is where
the per cpu device steps in. It serves as the clock source to this
pseudo device. Meaning we program the per cpu device for the next
broadcast event using a hrtimer framework that we introduce, which calls
pseudo_dev->event_handler on expiry. This is nothing but the broadcast
handler.

Therefore we are able to manage broadcast without having to have an
explicit clock device for the purpose.

> And that would mean, that even though you have a per cpu device, you'd
> deliberately not set the FEAT_PERCPU flag, because on PPC a per cpu
> timer is a valid broadcast device?

No we would set the FEAT_PERCPU for the per cpu device on PPC. As I
mentioned above this is not going to be registered as the broadcast
device. We would however not set this flag for the pseudo device, that
we register as the broadcast device.

> 
> Assuming that is not going into an utterly wrong direction: How would we
> close on this one? AFAIK, ARM does not have this capability and I guess
> it won't be added. So, should I go forward with the fix proposed by
> Thomas? Should we rename the FEAT_PERCPU flag to something else, given
> that PPC may use per cpu devices for broadcasting and the sole usage of
> that flag is to prevent such a device from becoming the broadcast device?

You can go ahead with this fix because as explained above, when we
register a broadcast device we use a pseudo device which has the
features that the broadcast framework approves. The per cpu device does
not register itself with the broadcast framework. It merely programs
itself for the next broadcast event. Hence this fix will not hinder the
broadcast support on PPC.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Sören
> 
> 
Regards
Preeti U Murthy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Soren Brinkmann]

Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.

Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
@@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
 			};
 		};
 
+		global_timer: global_timer@f8f00200 {
+			compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-global-timer";
+			reg = <0xf8f00200 0x20>;
+			interrupts = <1 11 0x301>;
+			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
+			clocks = <&clkc 4>;
+		};
+
 		ttc0: ttc0@f8001000 {
 			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
 			interrupts = < 0 10 4 0 11 4 0 12 4 >;
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
index 04f8a4a..6b04260 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
@@ -13,5 +13,6 @@ config ARCH_ZYNQ
 	select HAVE_SMP
 	select SPARSE_IRQ
 	select CADENCE_TTC_TIMER
+	select ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER
 	help
 	  Support for Xilinx Zynq ARM Cortex A9 Platform
-- 
1.8.4

[PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Soren Brinkmann]

Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.

Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
@@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
 			};
 		};
 
+		global_timer: global_timer at f8f00200 {
+			compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-global-timer";
+			reg = <0xf8f00200 0x20>;
+			interrupts = <1 11 0x301>;
+			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
+			clocks = <&clkc 4>;
+		};
+
 		ttc0: ttc0 at f8001000 {
 			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
 			interrupts = < 0 10 4 0 11 4 0 12 4 >;
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
index 04f8a4a..6b04260 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
@@ -13,5 +13,6 @@ config ARCH_ZYNQ
 	select HAVE_SMP
 	select SPARSE_IRQ
 	select CADENCE_TTC_TIMER
+	select ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER
 	help
 	  Support for Xilinx Zynq ARM Cortex A9 Platform
-- 
1.8.4

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:50:40 -0700, Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
> arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
>  arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> @@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
>  			};
>  		};
>  
> +		global_timer: global_timer@f8f00200 {

Nit: node names and property names use '-' not '_'. Plus the generic
names principle suggests the node should be names 'timer' not
'global_timer'. The following would be fine:

		global_timer: timer@f8f00200 {

(There's a distinction between node names and labels. '_' is fine in
labels since it doesn't get output into the compiled .dtb.

g.

> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-global-timer";
> +			reg = <0xf8f00200 0x20>;
> +			interrupts = <1 11 0x301>;
> +			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
> +			clocks = <&clkc 4>;
> +		};
> +
>  		ttc0: ttc0@f8001000 {
>  			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>  			interrupts = < 0 10 4 0 11 4 0 12 4 >;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> index 04f8a4a..6b04260 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> @@ -13,5 +13,6 @@ config ARCH_ZYNQ
>  	select HAVE_SMP
>  	select SPARSE_IRQ
>  	select CADENCE_TTC_TIMER
> +	select ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER
>  	help
>  	  Support for Xilinx Zynq ARM Cortex A9 Platform
> -- 
> 1.8.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:50:40 -0700, Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
> arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
>  arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> @@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
>  			};
>  		};
>  
> +		global_timer: global_timer at f8f00200 {

Nit: node names and property names use '-' not '_'. Plus the generic
names principle suggests the node should be names 'timer' not
'global_timer'. The following would be fine:

		global_timer: timer at f8f00200 {

(There's a distinction between node names and labels. '_' is fine in
labels since it doesn't get output into the compiled .dtb.

g.

> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-global-timer";
> +			reg = <0xf8f00200 0x20>;
> +			interrupts = <1 11 0x301>;
> +			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
> +			clocks = <&clkc 4>;
> +		};
> +
>  		ttc0: ttc0 at f8001000 {
>  			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>  			interrupts = < 0 10 4 0 11 4 0 12 4 >;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> index 04f8a4a..6b04260 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> @@ -13,5 +13,6 @@ config ARCH_ZYNQ
>  	select HAVE_SMP
>  	select SPARSE_IRQ
>  	select CADENCE_TTC_TIMER
> +	select ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER
>  	help
>  	  Support for Xilinx Zynq ARM Cortex A9 Platform
> -- 
> 1.8.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:50:40 -0700, Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
> arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
>  arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> @@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
>  			};
>  		};
>  
> +		global_timer: global_timer@f8f00200 {

Nit: node names and property names use '-' not '_'. Plus the generic
names principle suggests the node should be names 'timer' not
'global_timer'. The following would be fine:

		global_timer: timer@f8f00200 {

(There's a distinction between node names and labels. '_' is fine in
labels since it doesn't get output into the compiled .dtb.

g.

> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-global-timer";
> +			reg = <0xf8f00200 0x20>;
> +			interrupts = <1 11 0x301>;
> +			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
> +			clocks = <&clkc 4>;
> +		};
> +
>  		ttc0: ttc0@f8001000 {
>  			interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>  			interrupts = < 0 10 4 0 11 4 0 12 4 >;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> index 04f8a4a..6b04260 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig
> @@ -13,5 +13,6 @@ config ARCH_ZYNQ
>  	select HAVE_SMP
>  	select SPARSE_IRQ
>  	select CADENCE_TTC_TIMER
> +	select ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER
>  	help
>  	  Support for Xilinx Zynq ARM Cortex A9 Platform
> -- 
> 1.8.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:50:40 -0700, Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
> > Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
> > arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > @@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
> >  			};
> >  		};
> >  
> > +		global_timer: global_timer@f8f00200 {
> 
> Nit: node names and property names use '-' not '_'. Plus the generic
> names principle suggests the node should be names 'timer' not
> 'global_timer'. The following would be fine:
That is really good to know. When I wrote this line, I read through a
couple of other dtses and was unable to identify a consistent system
behind node/label names.

> 
> 		global_timer: timer@f8f00200 {
All right, I'll change it to this.

	
	Thanks,
	Sören

[PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:50:40 -0700, Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
> > Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
> > arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > @@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
> >  			};
> >  		};
> >  
> > +		global_timer: global_timer at f8f00200 {
> 
> Nit: node names and property names use '-' not '_'. Plus the generic
> names principle suggests the node should be names 'timer' not
> 'global_timer'. The following would be fine:
That is really good to know. When I wrote this line, I read through a
couple of other dtses and was unable to identify a consistent system
behind node/label names.

> 
> 		global_timer: timer at f8f00200 {
All right, I'll change it to this.

	
	Thanks,
	S?ren

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: zynq: Enable arm_global_timer

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:50:40 -0700, Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
> > Zynq is based on an ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore, which features the
> > arm_global_timer in its SCU. Therefore enable the timer for Zynq.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-zynq/Kconfig       | 1 +
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > index e32b92b..eaacb39 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
> > @@ -92,6 +92,14 @@
> >  			};
> >  		};
> >  
> > +		global_timer: global_timer@f8f00200 {
> 
> Nit: node names and property names use '-' not '_'. Plus the generic
> names principle suggests the node should be names 'timer' not
> 'global_timer'. The following would be fine:
That is really good to know. When I wrote this line, I read through a
couple of other dtses and was unable to identify a consistent system
behind node/label names.

> 
> 		global_timer: timer@f8f00200 {
All right, I'll change it to this.

	
	Thanks,
	Sören


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html