Hi,
[add Raspberry Pi kernel list]
Am 14.08.24 um 21:48 schrieb Florian Fainelli:
On 8/14/24 09:19, Stefan Wahren wrote:
Hi Naresh,
Am 14.08.24 um 17:26 schrieb Naresh Kamboju:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 20:54, Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
The arm64 kernel booting on bcm2711-rpi-4-b boot failed with today's Linux next-20240814 tag. The boot failed with half boot log [1]
Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing lkft@linaro.org
GOOD: next-20240813 BAD: next-20240814
The first investigation show the following to changes and I have reverted the following two commits and the boot test is back to pass [2].
$ git log --oneline next-20240813..next-20240814 arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ 6e7b99d720da6 ARM: dts: bcm271x: add missing properties to local_intc eb81f43c901ff ARM: dts: bcm2837/bcm2712: adjust local intc node names
Anders bisected down to first bad commit as, 6e7b99d720da ("ARM: dts: bcm271x: add missing properties to local_intc")
thank you for the report and sorry about that mess. I don't why i was under the impression they were harmless DT properties. I look into this, so a revert is the proper solution for now.
Without the 'interrupt-controller' of_irq_init() would not be picking up the interrupt-controller@7cd00000 node and it would not attempt to register the driver. We can see that the GIC is still the primary interrupt controller for that system:
[ 0.000000] Root IRQ handler: gic_handle_irq
my suspicion here is that irq-bcm2836.c still wants to own the inter processor operations and calls set_smp_ipi_range() which then replaces what the GIC has installed, thus diverting all interrupts towards itself, when it should not, and that won't work as there is no coordination with the ARM GIC driver. Stefan do you know how the VPU decides between one interrupt controller versus the other, assuming there is even a choice offered to users?
Unfortunately not, i hope someone from the Raspberry Pi guys can tell us.
Is it via adding/removing the 'interrupt-controller' property, or is it via the more conventional 'status' property?
FWIW, I did changes back in the days to support the 7211 sister chip of 2711:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191015185919.GA26464@bogus/T/
Thanks for pointing out, now i better understand the complexity behind it. So the missing properties were intended.
Dropping the patch for now, thanks!