Hi, Tyler
Thank you for your reply.
After the v2 patch series is posted,
we would like to review the source locations we noted.
Best regards,
Shuuichirou.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Baicar <baicar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:38 PM
> 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,
>
> 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
> >
