Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:07:55 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com,
        'Linux Samsung SOC' <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/16] irqchip/gic: Configure SGIs as standard
 interrupts
In-Reply-To: <33e3ef7c-44e9-a509-74ad-c2e39779fd9d@samsung.com>
References: <20200901144324.1071694-1-maz@kernel.org>
 <20200901144324.1071694-9-maz@kernel.org>
 <CGME20200914130601eucas1p23ce276d168dee37909b22c75499e68da@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
 <a917082d-4bfd-a6fd-db88-36e75f5f5921@samsung.com>
 <8642847d83ef5bb15663d0246d6af668@kernel.org>
 <65565f85-d932-37f3-a8cd-dbd13d7dbfad@samsung.com>
 <14e2c690bf99280588538989014c7356@kernel.org>
 <33e3ef7c-44e9-a509-74ad-c2e39779fd9d@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.8
Message-ID: <731a70ded2e2e862483d1df96224d039@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Marek,

On 2020-09-15 07:48, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
>>> Both Exynos 4210 and 4412 use non-zero cpu-offset in GIC node in
>>> device-tree: arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos{4210,4412}.dtsi, so I assume 
>>> that
>>> the GIC registers are not banked.
>> 
>> Annoyingly, it seems to work correctly in QEMU:

[...]

>> Do you happen to know whether the QEMU emulation is trustworthy?
> 
> I didn't play much with Exynos emulation on QEMU. All I know is that
> this patch simply doesn't work on the real hw.

I don't doubt it. The question was more whether we could trust QEMU
to be reliable, in which case the issue would be around a kernel
configuration problem. Could you stash your kernel config somewhere?

> If there is anything to check or test, let me know. I will try to help
> as much as possible.

It would be interesting to see whether the CPUs are getting any IPI.
Can you try the following patch, and send the results back?

Thanks,

         M.

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
index 00327fa74b01..5b01d53de9af 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
@@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ asmlinkage void secondary_start_kernel(void)
  #ifndef CONFIG_MMU
  	setup_vectors_base();
  #endif
-	pr_debug("CPU%u: Booted secondary processor\n", cpu);
+	pr_err("CPU%u: Booted secondary processor\n", cpu);

  	preempt_disable();
  	trace_hardirqs_off();
@@ -621,6 +621,8 @@ static void do_handle_IPI(int ipinr)
  {
  	unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();

+	pr_info("CPU%d IPI%d received\n", cpu, ipinr);
+
  	if ((unsigned)ipinr < NR_IPI)
  		trace_ipi_entry_rcuidle(ipi_types[ipinr]);

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index d7321ccf730f..7723cad6e406 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -190,6 +190,8 @@ static inline bool cascading_gic_irq(struct irq_data 
*d)
  static void gic_poke_irq(struct irq_data *d, u32 offset)
  {
  	u32 mask = 1 << (gic_irq(d) % 32);
+	if (gic_irq(d) < 16)
+		pr_info("CPU%d IPI%lu base = %lx\n", smp_processor_id(), d->hwirq, 
(unsigned long)gic_dist_base(d));
  	writel_relaxed(mask, gic_dist_base(d) + offset + (gic_irq(d) / 32) * 
4);
  }

@@ -814,6 +816,7 @@ static void gic_ipi_send_mask(struct irq_data *d, 
const struct cpumask *mask)
  	 */
  	dmb(ishst);

+	pr_info("CPU%d send IPI%lu base = %lx\n", smp_processor_id(), 
d->hwirq, (unsigned long)gic_data_dist_base(&gic_data[0]));
  	/* this always happens on GIC0 */
  	writel_relaxed(map << 16 | d->hwirq, gic_data_dist_base(&gic_data[0]) 
+ GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);


-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...