lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-15 16:13    [W:0.037 / U:2.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site