Re: [RFC] wait for VX855 RTC to become ready during resume

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Mon Sep 19 2011 - 17:28:39 EST


On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:36:37 +0100 (BST)
Daniel Drake <dsd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As diagnosed at http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/10757 we are finding that
> the RTC on the VIA VX855 frequently is not 'ready' during system resume.
>
> Reading from it produces zero. This causes the resume code to fail to
> increment the system clock for the amount of time that was spent sleeping,
> so the time is then wrong.
>
> We have found that if we wait for the RTC_REF_CLCK_32KHZ signal, the RTC
> does soon start returning 'good' values.
>
> The patch below demonstrates the solution we have found, but will probably
> make x86 maintainers cry. What would be a good approach to get this
> appropriately quirked and worked around? Detect VX855 southbridge on PCI bus
> and apply the quirk in this case? Do it from OLPC platform code?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c
> index 88ee70d..3ad2e47 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c
> @@ -100,6 +100,21 @@ unsigned long mach_get_cmos_time(void)
> unsigned int status, year, mon, day, hour, min, sec, century = 0;
>
> /*
> + * dev.laptop.org #10757, sometimes the RTC returns zero data
> + * immediately after a resume, so this code will give it some
> + * more time by waiting for the 32KHz clock bit to be set, in the
> + * hope that this means it is ready to be used.
> + */
> + if (!(CMOS_READ(RTC_FREQ_SELECT) & RTC_REF_CLCK_32KHZ)) {
> + int n = 0;
> + printk(KERN_INFO "rtc is insane, waiting for it\n");
> + while (!(CMOS_READ(RTC_FREQ_SELECT) & RTC_REF_CLCK_32KHZ)) {
> + cpu_relax();
> + n++;
> + }
> + printk(KERN_INFO "rtc was insane for %d counts\n", n);
> + }

If the rtc is permanently insane, the kernel locks up. I'd suggest
adding a timeout.

Perhaps also replace the cpu_relax() with a udelay(1), so the timeout
can be properly implemented and so that the information in that printk
has some useful meaning: "102 microseconds" is better than "11,434 counts".

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/