Hi Russell,

On 14/06/16 16:52, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:31:25PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:

quoted

Using "arm,tag-latency = <2 2 1>" as Russell seemed to indicate [2]
fixed things for him, also works for me. So should we update mainline
device-tree with that?

I've proposed that several times, and there seems to be no desire to
do so.

Sorry for missing that. IIRC, we didn't conclude as <2 2 1> did fail
on continuous reboot test over night on my setup. As I mentioned early 
we can change to this new value if people are able to use it reliably.

For me, VE CT9x4 no longer boots in my nightly builds, and
my plan at the start of the year was to take it out of both the
nightly builds and the boot tests - no one within ARM seems to have
any interest in the platform.

It's hard to get any kind of attention from hardware guys for such an
old platform.

Having a randomly failing platform due to hardware issues is not
productive to an automated boot test system, so I think we should
(a) remove it from automated testing, and (b) consider deleting
support for it from the kernel tree, as it seems there is little
interest in debugging what's happening.

Even with higher latency if the platform is unusable, I agree to remove.
If you think it's usable with the updated latency(<2 2 1>) then we can
update it.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep