Message ID | 5FA513F682BE7F4EAAB8EE035D5B08E44E9363CC@G01JPEXMBKW02 (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [RESEND] Make Fujitsu Erratum 010001 patch can be applied on A64FX v1r0 | expand |
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:22:36PM +0000, Okamoto, Takayuki wrote: > I resend the patch due to whitespace munging. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 3:44 AM > > To: james.morse@arm.com; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Catalin Marinas > > <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>; Will > > Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>; Zhang, Lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com> > > Subject: [PATCH v5] arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX erratum > > 010001 > > > > +/* Fujitsu Erratum 010001 affects A64FX 1.0 and 1.1, (v0r0 and v1r0) */ > > +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 > > MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX > > +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK > > (~MIDR_VARIANT(1)) > > This workaround for the erratum should be applied for both A64FX v1r0 and > v0r0, however, the patch v5 is only enabled on A64FX v0r0(MIDR.Variant == 0 > && MIDR.Revision == 0). > This issue is caused by the macro MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK. > > I have tested on both A64FX v1r0 and v0r0. This new patch will effect > only for A64FX. > > -- > Changed to be applied for not only A64FX v0r0 but also v1r0. > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > index 2afb133..1fb47b5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ > > /* Fujitsu Erratum 010001 affects A64FX 1.0 and 1.1, (v0r0 and v1r0) */ > #define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX > -#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~MIDR_VARIANT(1)) The bug is is that MIDR_VARIANT() is meant to extract the variant from a full MIDR value, not generate an in-place field value. > +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~(0x1 << MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT)) I beleive this can be: #define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~MIDR_VAR_REV(1, 0)) But otherwise this looks fine to me. Thanks, Mark. > #define TCR_CLEAR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 (TCR_NFD1 | TCR_NFD0) > > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
Hi guys, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org> On > Behalf Of Mark Rutland > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 12:13 AM > To: Okamoto, Takayuki/岡本 高幸 <tokamoto@jp.fujitsu.com> > Cc: 'Catalin Marinas' <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; 'Will Deacon' > <will.deacon@arm.com>; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org' > <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Zhang, Lei/張 雷 <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com>; > 'James Morse' <james.morse@arm.com>; hange-folder>? > <toggle-mailboxes@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>; > 'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org' <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> > Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] Make Fujitsu Erratum 010001 patch can be > applied on A64FX v1r0 > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:22:36PM +0000, Okamoto, Takayuki wrote: > > I resend the patch due to whitespace munging. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 3:44 AM > > > To: james.morse@arm.com; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Catalin Marinas > > > <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>; Will > > > Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>; Zhang, Lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > Subject: [PATCH v5] arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX erratum > > > 010001 > > > > > > +/* Fujitsu Erratum 010001 affects A64FX 1.0 and 1.1, (v0r0 and > > > +v1r0) */ #define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 > > > MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX > > > +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK > > > (~MIDR_VARIANT(1)) > > > > This workaround for the erratum should be applied for both A64FX v1r0 > > and v0r0, however, the patch v5 is only enabled on A64FX > > v0r0(MIDR.Variant == 0 && MIDR.Revision == 0). > > This issue is caused by the macro MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK. > > > > I have tested on both A64FX v1r0 and v0r0. This new patch will effect > > only for A64FX. > > > > -- > > Changed to be applied for not only A64FX v0r0 but also v1r0. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com> > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > index 2afb133..1fb47b5 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ > > > > /* Fujitsu Erratum 010001 affects A64FX 1.0 and 1.1, (v0r0 and v1r0) */ > > #define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 > MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX > > -#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK > (~MIDR_VARIANT(1)) > > The bug is is that MIDR_VARIANT() is meant to extract the variant from a full > MIDR value, not generate an in-place field value. > > > +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~(0x1 << > MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT)) > > I beleive this can be: > > #define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~MIDR_VAR_REV(1, > 0)) Thanks for your comments. I also have considered to use MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV macro, but the implication of (~MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(1, 0)) is "NOT v1r0". I think it may cause confusion, so I choose the simple way (~(0x1 << MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT)). > But otherwise this looks fine to me. Will this patch be merged to v5.1? Thanks, Zhang Lei
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 03:05:09AM +0000, Zhang, Lei wrote: > Thanks for your comments. > I also have considered to use MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV macro, > but the implication of (~MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(1, 0)) is "NOT v1r0". > I think it may cause confusion, so I choose the > simple way (~(0x1 << MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT)). I think that either way is just as confusing, and the fact we're assigning it to a mask (of bits to preserve) should make this clear. For consistency, I'd prefer to use MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(). Catalin, are you happy to take the below as a fix for v5.1? Thanks, Mark. ---->8---- From 6439e9c0b1525e9d4c7be65552e6f2b1f9d1dbe0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Okamoto, Takayuki" <tokamoto@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:22:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: apply workaround on A64FX v1r0 Fujitsu erratum 010001 applies to A64FX v0r0 and v1r0, and we try to handle either by masking MIDR with MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK before comparing it to MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001. Unfortunately, MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 is constructed incorrectly using MIDR_VARIANT(), which is intended to extract the variant field from MIDR_EL1, rather than generate the field in-place. This results in MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 being all-ones, and we only match A64FX v0r0. This patch uses MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV() to generate an in-place mask for the variant field, ensuring the we match both v0r0 and v1r0. Fixes: 3e32131abc311a5c ("arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX erratum 010001") Signed-off-by: Zhang Lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com> [Mark: use MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(), reword commit message] Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h index 2afb1338b48a..f3b659587a36 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ /* Fujitsu Erratum 010001 affects A64FX 1.0 and 1.1, (v0r0 and v1r0) */ #define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX -#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~MIDR_VARIANT(1)) +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(1, 0)) #define TCR_CLEAR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 (TCR_NFD1 | TCR_NFD0) #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:06:06PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > From 6439e9c0b1525e9d4c7be65552e6f2b1f9d1dbe0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "Okamoto, Takayuki" <tokamoto@jp.fujitsu.com> > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:22:36 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] arm64: apply workaround on A64FX v1r0 > > Fujitsu erratum 010001 applies to A64FX v0r0 and v1r0, and we try to > handle either by masking MIDR with MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK > before comparing it to MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001. > > Unfortunately, MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 is constructed incorrectly > using MIDR_VARIANT(), which is intended to extract the variant field > from MIDR_EL1, rather than generate the field in-place. This results in > MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 being all-ones, and we only match A64FX > v0r0. > > This patch uses MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV() to generate an in-place mask for the > variant field, ensuring the we match both v0r0 and v1r0. > > Fixes: 3e32131abc311a5c ("arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX erratum 010001") > Signed-off-by: Zhang Lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com> > [Mark: use MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(), reword commit message] > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Thanks. Mark's variant queued for 5.1-rc2.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h index 2afb133..1fb47b5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ /* Fujitsu Erratum 010001 affects A64FX 1.0 and 1.1, (v0r0 and v1r0) */ #define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX -#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~MIDR_VARIANT(1)) +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001_MASK (~(0x1 << MIDR_VARIANT_SHIFT)) #define TCR_CLEAR_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 (TCR_NFD1 | TCR_NFD0) #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__