Hi,
You must have noticed slowness or breakages with review.trustedfirmware.org or git.trustedfirmware.org during the week.
There are high and lows of network bandwidth usage affecting server availability.
The issue is being investigated but not yet 100% root caused.
Apologies for the frustration and inconvenience that this is causing.
Rest assured the team is on board to resolve this unfortunate situation.
Regards,
Olivier.
Hi,
I have a couple of questions related to notification.
Recently, we are working on kernel upgrade and I found this log while booting.
| genirq: Flags mismatch irq 6. 00004401 (ARM-FFA-NPI) vs. 00004400 (IPI)
| ARM FF-A: Error registering percpu NPI nIRQ 6 : -16
| ARM FF-A: Notification setup failed -16, not enabled
This does not affect the other functionalities when I tested using xtest of OP-TEE.
And, I found a commit [1] related this log in linux kernel and it said
| If the firmware returns incorrect SRI/NRI number, we fail to set it up
| in the kernel which is absolutely fine.
So I checked hafnium and I found that hafnium returns "5" as HF_NOTIFICATION_PENDING_INTID [2]
and it conflicts with IPI numbers (IPI_TIMER) [3].
So the question is :
1. HF_NOTIFICATION_PENDING_INTID seems to be conflicted. Do you have any plan to change its number greater than MAX_IPI?
2. Or, Is there the other way to avoid IRQ number conflicts? I mean, Did I miss something to configure?
3. Actually, I haven't find any use-case of notification yet. so notification is still working in progress?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/171396205191.700527.18157351542957…
[2] https://github.com/TF-Hafnium/hafnium/blob/main/inc/vmapi/hf/types.h#L62
[3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.14.1/source/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c#L72
Hi All,
The next release of the Firmware-A bundle of projects tagged v2.13 has an expected code freeze date of May, 2nd 2025.
In order to accommodate the Linaro connect event occurring during the week of May 12th we may extend the release completion date up until the week of May 26th.
v2.13 release preparation tasks start from now.
We want to ensure that planned feature patches for the release are submitted in good time for the review process to conclude.
As a kind recommendation and a matter of sharing CI resources, please launch CI jobs with care e.g.:
-For simple platform, docs changes, or one liners, use Allow-CI+1 label (no need for a full Allow-CI+2 run).
-For large patch stacks use Allow-CI+2 at top of the patch stack (and if required few individual Allow+CI+1 labels in the middle of the patch stack).
-Carefully analyze results and fix the change if required, before launching new jobs on the same change.
-If after issuing a Allow-CI+1 or Allow-CI+2 label a Build start notice is not added as a gerrit comment on the patch right away please be patient as under heavy load CI jobs can be queued and in extreme conditions it can be over an hour before the Build start notice is issued. Issuing another Allow-CI+1 or Allow-CI+2 label will just result in an additional job being queued.
Regards,
Olivier.
