Hi Shuuichirou,
I should be able to get a v2 patch series out by the end of the month.
Thanks,
Tyler
On 4/20/2022 3:54 AM, ishii.shuuichir@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, Tyler.
When do you plan to post the v2 patch series?
Please let me know if you don't mind.
Best regards.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Baicar <baicar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 8:33 AM
To: Ishii, Shuuichirou/石井 周一郎 <ishii.shuuichir@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Tyler Baicar'
<baicar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
abdulhamid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; darren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; will@xxxxxxxxxx; maz@xxxxxxxxxx;
james.morse@xxxxxxx; alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx; suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx;
lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; guohanjun@xxxxxxxxxx; sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx;
rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx; bp@xxxxxxxxx;
mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx;
vincenzo.frascino@xxxxxxx; tabba@xxxxxxxxxx; marcan@xxxxxxxxx;
keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx; jthierry@xxxxxxxxxx; masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx;
samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx; john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx; daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx;
gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; zhangshaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; tmricht@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Vineeth.Pillai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI/AEST: Initial AEST driver
Hi Shuuichirou,
Thank you for your feedback!
On 12/9/2021 3:10 AM, ishii.shuuichir@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, Tyler.
We would like to make a few comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Baicar <baicar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 2:07 AM
To: patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; abdulhamid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
darren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx;
will@xxxxxxxxxx; maz@xxxxxxxxxx; james.morse@xxxxxxx;
alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx; suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx;
lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; guohanjun@xxxxxxxxxx;
sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx; rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx;
tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx; bp@xxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx;
anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx; vincenzo.frascino@xxxxxxx;
tabba@xxxxxxxxxx; marcan@xxxxxxxxx; keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
jthierry@xxxxxxxxxx; masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx; samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx;
john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx; daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx; gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
zhangshaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; tmricht@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ishii, Shuuichirou/石井
周一郎 <ishii.shuuichir@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Vineeth.Pillai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Tyler Baicar <baicar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI/AEST: Initial AEST driver
Add support for parsing the ARM Error Source Table and basic handling
of errors reported through both memory mapped and system register
interfaces.
Assume system register interfaces are only registered with private
peripheral interrupts (PPIs); otherwise there is no guarantee the
core handling the error is the core which took the error and has the
syndrome info in its system registers.
Add logging for all detected errors and trigger a kernel panic if
there is any uncorrected error present.
Signed-off-by: Tyler Baicar <baicar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
[...]
+static int __init aest_init_node(struct acpi_aest_hdr *node) {
+ union acpi_aest_processor_data *proc_data;
+ union aest_node_spec *node_spec;
+ struct aest_node_data *data;
+ int ret;
+
+ data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct aest_node_data), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!data)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ data->node_type = node->type;
+
+ node_spec = ACPI_ADD_PTR(union aest_node_spec, node,
node->node_specific_offset);
+
+ switch (node->type) {
+ case ACPI_AEST_PROCESSOR_ERROR_NODE:
+ memcpy(&data->data, node_spec, sizeof(struct
acpi_aest_processor));
+ break;
+ case ACPI_AEST_MEMORY_ERROR_NODE:
+ memcpy(&data->data, node_spec, sizeof(struct
acpi_aest_memory));
+ break;
+ case ACPI_AEST_SMMU_ERROR_NODE:
+ memcpy(&data->data, node_spec, sizeof(struct
acpi_aest_smmu));
+ break;
+ case ACPI_AEST_VENDOR_ERROR_NODE:
+ memcpy(&data->data, node_spec, sizeof(struct
acpi_aest_vendor));
+ break;
+ case ACPI_AEST_GIC_ERROR_NODE:
+ memcpy(&data->data, node_spec, sizeof(struct
acpi_aest_gic));
+ break;
+ default:
+ kfree(data);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (node->type == ACPI_AEST_PROCESSOR_ERROR_NODE) {
+ proc_data = ACPI_ADD_PTR(union acpi_aest_processor_data,
node_spec,
+ sizeof(acpi_aest_processor));
+
+ switch (data->data.processor.resource_type) {
+ case ACPI_AEST_CACHE_RESOURCE:
+ memcpy(&data->proc_data, proc_data,
+ sizeof(struct acpi_aest_processor_cache));
+ break;
+ case ACPI_AEST_TLB_RESOURCE:
+ memcpy(&data->proc_data, proc_data,
+ sizeof(struct acpi_aest_processor_tlb));
+ break;
+ case ACPI_AEST_GENERIC_RESOURCE:
+ memcpy(&data->proc_data, proc_data,
+ sizeof(struct acpi_aest_processor_generic));
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ ret = aest_init_interface(node, data);
+ if (ret) {
+ kfree(data);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ return aest_init_interrupts(node, data);
If aest_init_interrupts() failed, is it necessary to release the data
pointer acquired by kzalloc?
aest_init_interrupts() returns an error if any of the interrupts in the interrupt list
fails, but it's possible that some interrupts in the list registered successfully. So
we attempt to keep chugging along in that scenario because some interrupts may
be enabled and registered with the interface successfully. If any interrupt
registration fails, there will be a print notifying that there was a failure when
initializing that node.
+}
+
+static void aest_count_ppi(struct acpi_aest_hdr *node)
+{
+ struct acpi_aest_node_interrupt *interrupt;
+ int i;
+
+ interrupt = ACPI_ADD_PTR(struct acpi_aest_node_interrupt, node,
+ node->node_interrupt_offset);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < node->node_interrupt_count; i++, interrupt++) {
+ if (interrupt->gsiv >= 16 && interrupt->gsiv < 32)
+ num_ppi++;
+ }
+}
+
+static int aest_starting_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < num_ppi; i++)
+ enable_percpu_irq(ppi_irqs[i], IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int aest_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
+{
Wouldn't it be better to execute disable_percpu_irq(), which is paired
with enable_percpu_irq(), in aest_dying_cpu()?
Good point. I will add that in the next version.
Thanks,
Tyler
