Messages in this thread | | | From | "Ghannam, Yazen" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD: Carve out SMCA bank configuration | Date | Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:34:42 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@suse.de] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:23 PM > To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> > Cc: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org; Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>; > x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD: Carve out SMCA bank configuration > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:29:31PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote: > > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com> > > > > Scalable MCA systems have a new MCA_CONFIG register that we use to > > configure each bank. We currently use this when we set up thresholding. > > However, this is logically separate. > > > > Move setup of MCA_CONFIG into a separate function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 48 > > ++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > ... > > > /* cpu init entry point, called from mce.c with preempt off */ @@ > > -515,8 +519,10 @@ void mce_amd_feature_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > > int offset = -1; > > > > for (bank = 0; bank < mca_cfg.banks; ++bank) { > > - if (mce_flags.smca) > > + if (mce_flags.smca) { > > get_smca_bank_info(bank); > > + set_smca_config(bank); > > Or simply bundle those two which do something SMCA-aware per bank into a > single: > > smca_configure(bank); > > which reads almost like a sentence. >
I'd like to keep the functions separate since they're logically independent. I can define something like smca_configure() as a wrapper function that can contain current and future SMCA related functions. Is this okay?
Thanks, Yazen
| |