Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/time: use feature fixup in __USE_RTC() instead of cpu feature.
In-Reply-To: <60da7620a43dc29317a062f1d58dcfde8d32b258.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
References: <55c267ac6e0cd289970accfafbf9dda11a324c2e.1566802736.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> <87blwc40i4.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <60da7620a43dc29317a062f1d58dcfde8d32b258.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:12:20 +1000
Message-ID: <87y2zf2w6z.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> writes:

> On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 21:41 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>> > sched_clock(), used by printk(), calls __USE_RTC() to know
>> > whether to use realtime clock or timebase.
>> > 
>> > __USE_RTC() uses cpu_has_feature() which is initialised by
>> > machine_init(). Before machine_init(), __USE_RTC() returns true,
>> > leading to a program check exception on CPUs not having realtime
>> > clock.
>> > 
>> > In order to be able to use printk() earlier, use feature fixup.
>> > Feature fixups are applies in early_init(), enabling the use of
>> > printk() earlier.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/time.h | 9 ++++++++-
>> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> The other option would be just to make this a compile time decision, eg.
>> add CONFIG_PPC_601 and use that to gate whether we use RTC.
>> 
>> Given how many 601 users there are, maybe 1?, I think that would be a
>> simpler option and avoids complicating the code / binary for everyone
>> else.
>
> Didn't we ditch 601 support years ago anyway ? We had workaround we
> threw out I think...

Paul said his still booted recently.

cheers