Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:50:06 +0530 | From | Santosh Shilimkar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: MM: Add the workaround of Errata 774769 |
| |
On Monday 10 December 2012 07:46 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:40:06PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Whats the stand on such erratas ? I saw on one of thread one of >> you suggesting to stop patching kernel where secure/non-secure >> kernel will need different errata WA. > > Well, yes, there's that too. I think were we got to was deciding that > it is impossible to tell whether an errata is required for any particular > SoC: even when you know the rXpX number of the core, you don't know if, > as part of the design, the manufacturer incorporated some fix. > > So, the conclusion we came to was that the _only_ place that work-arounds > like these can be enabled is before we get anywhere near the kernel - in > whatever pre-kernel code the platform has, and doing whatever platform > specific magic is required to get those work-arounds enabled. > > What that means is that having the work-arounds in the kernel is pretty > pointless when it's a matter of enabling a bit or two in some secure-only > register. > > I don't think I heard any objections to removing those work-arounds which > fall into this category from the kernel; I think that's something we need > to schedule for a few kernel versions time, after we've put them into the > feature-removal file, and marked them in the config as going away. > Thanks for confirming it. All the patches in the $subject series falls into secure/non-secure category and hence subject to the same issues.
Regards Santosh
| |