Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:12:41 +0000 | From | Mark Rutland <> | 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))
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 >
| |