Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1418122 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Enable Errata 430973 for OMAP3

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Enable Errata 430973 for OMAP3 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2016-06-09 09:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Enable Errata 430973 for OMAP3 Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> - 2016-06-09 10:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Enable Errata 430973 for OMAP3 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2016-06-09 10:10 +0200

#1418122 — Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Enable Errata 430973 for OMAP3

* Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [160519 16:23]:
> Enable Erratum 430973 similar to commit 5c86c5339c56 ("ARM:
> omap2plus_defconfig: Enable ARM erratum 430973 for omap3") - Since
> multiple defconfigs can exist from various points of view (multi_v7,
> omap2plus etc.. it is always better to enable the erratum from the
> Kconfig selection point of view so that downstream kernels dont have
> to rediscover this all over again.

This should safe to select now. Note that proc-v7.S still does not
do anything with multiarch to configure it. So the bootloader still
needs to enable it, or it needs to be done in the machine init like
n900 does.

So applying into omap-for-v4.7/fixes as it can solve some mysterious
app crashers with armhf at least.

Regards,

Tony

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1418148

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:15:13AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [160519 16:23]:
> > Enable Erratum 430973 similar to commit 5c86c5339c56 ("ARM:
> > omap2plus_defconfig: Enable ARM erratum 430973 for omap3") - Since
> > multiple defconfigs can exist from various points of view (multi_v7,
> > omap2plus etc.. it is always better to enable the erratum from the
> > Kconfig selection point of view so that downstream kernels dont have
> > to rediscover this all over again.
> 
> This should safe to select now. Note that proc-v7.S still does not
> do anything with multiarch to configure it. So the bootloader still
> needs to enable it, or it needs to be done in the machine init like
> n900 does.

mh I totally forgot about 430973. I still think [0] is the
better solution. IIRC I never uploaded them to Russel's
patchsystem, though :(

[0] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2002603

> So applying into omap-for-v4.7/fixes as it can solve some mysterious
> app crashers with armhf at least.

Only on N900 though:

$ git grep ARM_ERRATA_430973
arch/arm/Kconfig:config ARM_ERRATA_430973
arch/arm/configs/axm55xx_defconfig:CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973=y
arch/arm/configs/omap2plus_defconfig:CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973=y
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c:#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973
arch/arm/mach-omap2/pdata-quirks.c: if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973)) {
arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S:#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973) && !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM)

-- Sebastian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1418154

* Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> [160609 01:00]:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:15:13AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [160519 16:23]:
> > > Enable Erratum 430973 similar to commit 5c86c5339c56 ("ARM:
> > > omap2plus_defconfig: Enable ARM erratum 430973 for omap3") - Since
> > > multiple defconfigs can exist from various points of view (multi_v7,
> > > omap2plus etc.. it is always better to enable the erratum from the
> > > Kconfig selection point of view so that downstream kernels dont have
> > > to rediscover this all over again.
> > 
> > This should safe to select now. Note that proc-v7.S still does not
> > do anything with multiarch to configure it. So the bootloader still
> > needs to enable it, or it needs to be done in the machine init like
> > n900 does.
> 
> mh I totally forgot about 430973. I still think [0] is the
> better solution. IIRC I never uploaded them to Russel's
> patchsystem, though :(
> 
> [0] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2002603

Sure makes sense to me. Meanwhile, Nishanth's patch prevents
hitting the same issue over and over.

Regards,

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web