mbox series

[v2,0/3] Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57

Message ID 20201013125033.4749-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57 | expand

Message

Sascha Hauer Oct. 13, 2020, 12:50 p.m. UTC
This driver is based on an earlier version from York Sun which can
be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/14/1203.

At that time the conclusion was that this driver is not suitable for
mainline as it used IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED CPU registers and also
NXP specific SMC calls. All this was used for the error injection only,
for error reporting it is not needed.

This is another try to get this driver to mainline. All error injection
code has been removed (though it has initially been used to test this
driver on an i.MX8 SoC), what's left is unfortunately not testable, but
also doesn't contain none of the doubtful code anymore.

Changes since v1:
- Split dt-binding into separate patch
- Sort local function variables in reverse-xmas tree order
- drop unnecessary comparison and make variable bool

Sascha Hauer (2):
  dt-bindings: edac: Add binding for L1/L2 error detection for Cortex
    A53/57
  drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57

York Sun (1):
  arm64: dts: ls104x: Add L1/L2 cache edac node

 .../bindings/edac/arm,cortex-a5x-edac.yaml    |  32 +++
 .../arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a.dtsi |   5 +
 .../arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1046a.dtsi |   5 +
 drivers/edac/Kconfig                          |   6 +
 drivers/edac/Makefile                         |   1 +
 drivers/edac/cortex_arm64_l1_l2.c             | 208 ++++++++++++++++++
 6 files changed, 257 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/arm,cortex-a5x-edac.yaml
 create mode 100644 drivers/edac/cortex_arm64_l1_l2.c

Comments

Rob Herring Oct. 14, 2020, 1:25 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 02:50:30PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> This driver is based on an earlier version from York Sun which can
> be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/14/1203.
> 
> At that time the conclusion was that this driver is not suitable for
> mainline as it used IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED CPU registers and also
> NXP specific SMC calls. All this was used for the error injection only,
> for error reporting it is not needed.

Have you looked at Amazon's version:
http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200510151310.17372-2-hhhawa@amazon.com

Which is an A57 EDAC driver. Looks like it never got upstream though, 
but it's not clear why.

You'll note that it doesn't have a virtual DT node either.

> This is another try to get this driver to mainline. All error injection
> code has been removed (though it has initially been used to test this
> driver on an i.MX8 SoC), what's left is unfortunately not testable, but
> also doesn't contain none of the doubtful code anymore.
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - Split dt-binding into separate patch
> - Sort local function variables in reverse-xmas tree order
> - drop unnecessary comparison and make variable bool
> 
> Sascha Hauer (2):
>   dt-bindings: edac: Add binding for L1/L2 error detection for Cortex
>     A53/57
>   drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57
> 
> York Sun (1):
>   arm64: dts: ls104x: Add L1/L2 cache edac node
> 
>  .../bindings/edac/arm,cortex-a5x-edac.yaml    |  32 +++
>  .../arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a.dtsi |   5 +
>  .../arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1046a.dtsi |   5 +
>  drivers/edac/Kconfig                          |   6 +
>  drivers/edac/Makefile                         |   1 +
>  drivers/edac/cortex_arm64_l1_l2.c             | 208 ++++++++++++++++++
>  6 files changed, 257 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/arm,cortex-a5x-edac.yaml
>  create mode 100644 drivers/edac/cortex_arm64_l1_l2.c
> 
> -- 
> 2.28.0
>
Sascha Hauer Oct. 14, 2020, 2:04 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:25:11AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 02:50:30PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > This driver is based on an earlier version from York Sun which can
> > be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/14/1203.
> > 
> > At that time the conclusion was that this driver is not suitable for
> > mainline as it used IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED CPU registers and also
> > NXP specific SMC calls. All this was used for the error injection only,
> > for error reporting it is not needed.
> 
> Have you looked at Amazon's version:
> http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200510151310.17372-2-hhhawa@amazon.com

No, I was not aware of that driver. It's basically the same driver, but
limited to a single SoC. Looks like at least some things are better in
that driver, read_sysreg_s(ARM_CA57_L2MERRSR_EL1) reads better than my
open coded variant.

> 
> Which is an A57 EDAC driver. Looks like it never got upstream though, 
> but it's not clear why.
> 
> You'll note that it doesn't have a virtual DT node either.

Testing the SoC type in an initcall looks odd to me. Wouldn't a
dedicated node be preferred?

Sascha
Rob Herring Oct. 14, 2020, 3:17 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 9:04 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:25:11AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 02:50:30PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > This driver is based on an earlier version from York Sun which can
> > > be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/14/1203.
> > >
> > > At that time the conclusion was that this driver is not suitable for
> > > mainline as it used IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED CPU registers and also
> > > NXP specific SMC calls. All this was used for the error injection only,
> > > for error reporting it is not needed.
> >
> > Have you looked at Amazon's version:
> > http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200510151310.17372-2-hhhawa@amazon.com
>
> No, I was not aware of that driver. It's basically the same driver, but
> limited to a single SoC. Looks like at least some things are better in
> that driver, read_sysreg_s(ARM_CA57_L2MERRSR_EL1) reads better than my
> open coded variant.
>
> >
> > Which is an A57 EDAC driver. Looks like it never got upstream though,
> > but it's not clear why.
> >
> > You'll note that it doesn't have a virtual DT node either.
>
> Testing the SoC type in an initcall looks odd to me. Wouldn't a
> dedicated node be preferred?

Yes, the one with "arm,cortex-a57". But no, a virtual node isn't
preferred. We discussed this at length on Amazon's version IIRC. I
could perhaps be convinced to add a property in the cpu nodes that ECC
is present/enabled. Then you'd just match on cpu compatible(s) and
check for the property. You're still creating the device yourself, but
that's the kernel's problem which shouldn't dictate how you design
your bindings.

Rob