On Tue 29 Oct 10:11 PDT 2019, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:07:53AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > On 10/29/2019 7:44 AM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > > On 10/29/2019 4:50 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:06:04PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > > The Kryo cores share errata 1009 with Falkor, so add their model > > > > > definitions and enable it for them as well. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 4 ++++ > > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 2 ++ > > > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > > > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > > > > index b1454d117cd2..8067476ea2e4 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > > > > @@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ > > > > > #define QCOM_CPU_PART_FALKOR_V1 0x800 > > > > > #define QCOM_CPU_PART_FALKOR 0xC00 > > > > > #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO 0x200 > > > > > +#define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_GOLD 0x211 > > > > > +#define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_SILVER 0x205 > > > > > > These are not Kryo part numbers (8998+). They are Hydra ones. > > > > > > > > > > > Can you double-check this, please? My Pixel-1 phone claims something with > > > > 0x201, but I don't know if that's what you were aiming for. It would be > > > > great if Qualcomm could document these register fields somewhere, > > > > especially > > > > since we're trying to work around their hardware errata for them. > > > > > > I wish I could point you to public documentation. I don't happen to > > > know where it is. As far as 8996 goes, there are quite a few part > > > numbers. The ones I could find are: > > > 201 > > > 205 > > > 211 > > > 241 > > > 251 > > > > > > 281 happens to be QDF2432 > > > > From asking around, I found someone in the know. We don't have public > > documentation, but I can follow up to try to create something - its likely > > going to take a bit. I was given the following information to share. This > > is specific to Hydra only- > > > > MIDR[15:12] = PART[11:8] > > Hydra and technology node differentiator (0x1 = Hydra 16nm; 0x2 = Hydra > > 14nm; 0x3 = Hydra 10nm) > > > > MIDR[11:10] = PART[7:6] > > This corresponds to the cluster revision number > > > > MIDR[9:8] = PART[5:4] > > Technology variant within the node > > > > MIDR[7:6] = PART[3:2] > > 0b00 = 512KB L2 > > 0b01 = 1MB L2 > > 0b10 = 2MB L2 > > 0b11 = 4MB L2 > > > > MIDR[5:4] = PART[1:0] > > 0b00 = uni-core > > 0b01 = dual-core cluster > > 0b10 = tri-core cluster > > 0b11 = quad-core cluster > > Thanks for digging up the details, Jeffrey. As far as I can tell, our > 'is_kryo_midr()' function will return 'true' for all of these, so I think > that's what we should be using for this erratum workaround. Would that work > for you? > Yes, I agree. There's a fair amount of variants involved, so let's go for is_kryo_midr() (which should be is_hydra_midr()). Regards, Bjorn
