On 18.09.23 12:25, Shiju Jose wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for looking into this.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 18 September 2023 08:24
To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
mm@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx;
tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx; james.morse@xxxxxxx; dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx; jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx; somasundaram.a@xxxxxxx;
erdemaktas@xxxxxxxxxx; pgonda@xxxxxxxxxx; rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx;
duenwen@xxxxxxxxxx; Vilas.Sridharan@xxxxxxx; mike.malvestuto@xxxxxxxxx;
gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx; Linuxarm <linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Cameron
<jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] Documentation/scrub-configure.rst: Add
documentation for scrub driver
On 15.09.23 19:28, shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
Add documentation for scrub driver, supports configure scrub
parameters, in Documentation/scrub-configure.rst
Signed-off-by: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/scrub-configure.rst | 55
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/scrub-configure.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/scrub-configure.rst
b/Documentation/scrub-configure.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9f8581b88788
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/scrub-configure.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+==========================
+Scrub subsystem driver
+==========================
+
+Copyright (c) 2023 HiSilicon Limited.
+
+:Author: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
+:License: The GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
+ (dual licensed under the GPL v2) :Original Reviewers:
+
+- Written for: 6.7
+- Updated for:
+
+Introduction
+------------
+The scrub subsystem driver provides the interface for configure the
"... interface for configuring memory scrubbers in the system."
are we only configuring firmware/hw-based memory scrubbing? I assume so.
The scrub control could be used for the SW based memory scrubbing too.
Okay, looks like there is not too much hw/firmware specific in there
(besides these weird range changes).
[...]
+-------
+
+ The usage takes the form shown in this example::
+
+ # echo 0x300000 > /sys/class/scrub/scrub0/region0/addr_base
+ # echo 0x100000 > /sys/class/scrub/scrub0/region0/addr_size
+ # cat /sys/class/scrub/scrub0/region0/speed_available
+ # 1-60
+ # echo 25 > /sys/class/scrub/scrub0/region0/speed
+ # echo 1 > /sys/class/scrub/scrub0/region0/enable
+
+ # cat /sys/class/scrub/scrub0/region0/speed
+ # 0x19
Is it reasonable to return the speed as hex? You set it as dec.
Presently return speed as hex to reduce the number of callback function needed
for reading the hex/dec data because the values for the address range
need to be in hex.
If speed_available returns dec, speed better also return dec IMHO.
+ # cat /sys/class/scrub/scrub0/region0/addr_base
+ # 0x100000
But didn't we set it to 0x300000 ...
This is an emulated example for testing the RASF/RAS2 definition.
According to the RASF & RAS2 definition, the actual address range in the
platform could vary from the requested address range for the patrol scrubbing.
"The platform calculates the nearest patrol scrub boundary address
from where it can start". The platform returns the actual address range
in response to GET_PATROL_PARAMETERS command to the firmware.
Please see section 5.2.21.2.1 Hardware-based Memory Scrubbing ,
Table 5.87: Parameter Block Structure for PATROL_SCRUB in the
ACPI 6.5 specification.
So you configure [0x300000 - 0x400000] and you get [0x100000 - 0x300000]
How does that make any sense? :)
Shouldn't we rather return an error when setting a range that is
impossible, instead of the hardware deciding to scrub something
completely different (as can be seen in the example)?
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
