marvell_cesa fails to register on kirkwood (88F6282)

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Arnaud Ebalard [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi guys,

Gregory CLEMENT [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hi,

+cc Arnaud

 On ven., f?vr. 05 2016, Gregory CLEMENT [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi JM,

 On ven., f?vr. 05 2016, JM [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Gregory CLEMENT
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi JM,

 On ven., f?vr. 05 2016, JM [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Boris Brezillon
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Jan, Andrew

On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:02:46 +0100
Andrew Lunn [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 06:01:18AM +0100, JM wrote:

quoted

Hi,

I am testing marvell_cesa on a kirkwood device (QNAP TS-212p, Marvell
Kirkwood 88F6282, dts: http://pastebin.com/Gk95KFHf ).
As of kernel 4.4 (4.4.0-trunk-kirkwood #1 Debian 4.4-1~exp1) it fails
in the following way:

modprobe marvell_cesa allhwsupport=1
dmesg | tail -n 1
[ 1057.855091] marvell-cesa: probe of f1030000.crypto failed with error -12

or:

modprobe marvell_cesa
dmesg | tail -n 1
[ 9178.399357] marvell-cesa: probe of f1030000.crypto failed with error -524

With kernel 4.3 it would fail with error -22 on that hardware. There
are scattered reports from other users experiencing the same issue
(1,2,3)

I wonder if this is a result of an invalid definition of the
crypto-sram in the dts of this SoC, or perhaps some other problem
(PEBKAC included).

Hi Jan

Do you have SRAM enabled in your kernel configuration. The
mvebu_v5_defconfig does not have it, which is a bug really.

Hm, the CRYPTO_DEV_MARVELL_CESA option selects the SRAM one [1].
Anyway, I also think this error is related to the SRAM (not sure why the
driver is not able to get the SRAM though).

Best Regards,

Boris

[1]http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/crypto/Kconfig#L168


--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Hi,

Thanks for getting back to me. Indeed, CONFIG_SRAM is enabled, I put
the complete .config here: http://pastebin.com/40eKMJqE

If there is anything I can do to help squish this bug, please let me
know.

How do you get your dts?
it seems that you generated it from your dtb (or from /proc).

I tried to do the same from arch/arm/boot/dts/kirkwood-ts219-6282.dtb,
but the resulting dts is too different for an easy comparison.

Could you also provide your dtb, maybe by using the same dtc with the
option -s I will manage to get the something easier to compare.

quoted

Yes, I simply used dtc -I fs /proc/device-tree to obtain the dts.

Here is the relevant .dtb file : http://heap.ovh/files/kirkwood-ts219-6282.dtb

OK so this dtb is exacly the one from the mainline. As most of the CESU
stuff is set in te dtis, we will be able to compare it on the other
kirkwood based board.

Gregory

So with the help of Boris we checked the ranges propreties, the reg
property and the clock too. Everyting seems OK.

Arnaud,

as you are the on who tested the cesa on kirkwood, do you remember if
you needed to add specific Kconfig or to made some change in the dts?

Here is the result I get on my ReadyNAS Duo v2 (88F6282, see below) w/ a
stock 4.4 kernel I just cross-compiled w/ a gcc 4.9.2. The kernel has no
modules and uses an appended DTB (u-boot on the platform is pretyy old):

root at mood:~# dmesg | grep -i cesa
[    3.306135] marvell-cesa f1030000.crypto: CESA device successfully registered

root at mood:~# uname -a
Linux mood 4.4.0.duov2 #1 Fri Feb 5 21:11:25 CET 2016 armv5tel GNU/Linux

root at mood:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
model name      : Feroceon 88FR131 rev 1 (v5l)
BogoMIPS        : 1594.16
Features        : swp half thumb fastmult edsp
CPU implementer : 0x56
CPU architecture: 5TE
CPU variant     : 0x2
CPU part        : 0x131
CPU revision    : 1

Hardware        : Marvell Kirkwood (Flattened Device Tree)
Revision        : 0000
Serial          : 0000000000000000

I'll try and do the same now w/ CESA support compiled as module to see
what I get. I'll keep you posted.

As a side note, a simple grep on the .config file you provided at
http://pastebin.com/40eKMJqE makes me wonder why it has some
grsec options residue. Did you test on a stock 4.4 kernel or on
something w/ additional patches? If the latter, could you check what a
stock kernel gives?

Cheers,

a+

Thanks for the reply. Your cpuinfo is exactly the same as mine. I am
using the kernel as shipped by Debian (4.4 from experimental). I was
directed from a Debian ARM mailing list to report to upstream, but
perhaps it is a distribution-specific bug. I will try to build a
vanilla kernel, although that will take me some time (no
cross-compilation environment at hand). I will keep you posted.

Best regards,
Jan