Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:38:16 +0000 | | From | Dave Martin <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: Run enable method for errata work arounds on late CPUs |
| |
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 01:22:19PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 17/01/18 12:25, Dave Martin wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:05:56AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > >>When a CPU is brought up after we have finalised the system > >>wide capabilities (i.e, features and errata), we make sure the > >>new CPU doesn't need a new errata work around which has not been > >>detected already. However we don't run enable() method on the new > >>CPU for the errata work arounds already detected. This could > >>cause the new CPU running without potential work arounds. > >>It is upto the "enable()" method to decide if this CPU should > >>do something about the errata. > >> > >>Fixes: commit 6a6efbb45b7d95c84 ("arm64: Verify CPU errata work arounds on hotplugged CPU") > >>Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > >>Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > >>Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > >>Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > >>Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> > >>Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> > >>--- > >> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 9 ++++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > >>index 90a9e465339c..54e41dfe41f6 100644 > >>--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > >>+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > >>@@ -373,15 +373,18 @@ void verify_local_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > >> { > >> const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps = arm64_errata; > >>- for (; caps->matches; caps++) > >>- if (!cpus_have_cap(caps->capability) && > >>- caps->matches(caps, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)) { > >>+ for (; caps->matches; caps++) { > >>+ if (cpus_have_cap(caps->capability)) { > >>+ if (caps->enable) > >>+ caps->enable((void *)caps); > > > >Do we really need this cast? > > Yes, otherwise we would be passing a "const *" where a "void *" is expected, > and the compiler warns. Or we could simply change the prototype of the > enable() method to accept a const capability ptr.
Hmmm, what is this argument for exactly? cpufeature.h doesn't explain what it is.
Does any enable method use this for anything other than a struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const * ? If not, it would be better to specifiy that.
Cheers ---Dave
|  |