Hi Prabhakar,
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:45 AM Lad, Prabhakar
<prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 8:23 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 9:25 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > We should be probing for IOCP during boot stage only. As we were probing
> > > for IOCP for all the stages this caused the below issue during module-init
> > > stage,
> > >
> > > [9.019104] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffff8100d3a0
> > > [9.027153] Oops [#1]
> > > [9.029421] Modules linked in: rcar_canfd renesas_usbhs i2c_riic can_dev spi_rspi i2c_core
> > > [9.037686] CPU: 0 PID: 90 Comm: udevd Not tainted 6.7.0-rc1+ #57
> > > [9.043756] Hardware name: Renesas SMARC EVK based on r9a07g043f01 (DT)
> > > [9.050339] epc : riscv_noncoherent_supported+0x10/0x3e
> > > [9.055558] ra : andes_errata_patch_func+0x4a/0x52
> > > [9.060418] epc : ffffffff8000d8c2 ra : ffffffff8000d95c sp : ffffffc8003abb00
> > > [9.067607] gp : ffffffff814e25a0 tp : ffffffd80361e540 t0 : 0000000000000000
> > > [9.074795] t1 : 000000000900031e t2 : 0000000000000001 s0 : ffffffc8003abb20
> > > [9.081984] s1 : ffffffff015b57c7 a0 : 0000000000000000 a1 : 0000000000000001
> > > [9.089172] a2 : 0000000000000000 a3 : 0000000000000000 a4 : ffffffff8100d8be
> > > [9.096360] a5 : 0000000000000001 a6 : 0000000000000001 a7 : 000000000900031e
> > > [9.103548] s2 : ffffffff015b57d7 s3 : 0000000000000001 s4 : 000000000000031e
> > > [9.110736] s5 : 8000000000008a45 s6 : 0000000000000500 s7 : 000000000000003f
> > > [9.117924] s8 : ffffffc8003abd48 s9 : ffffffff015b1140 s10: ffffffff8151a1b0
> > > [9.125113] s11: ffffffff015b1000 t3 : 0000000000000001 t4 : fefefefefefefeff
> > > [9.132301] t5 : ffffffff015b57c7 t6 : ffffffd8b63a6000
> > > [9.137587] status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: ffffffff8100d3a0 cause: 000000000000000f
> > > [9.145468] [<ffffffff8000d8c2>] riscv_noncoherent_supported+0x10/0x3e
> > > [9.151972] [<ffffffff800027e8>] _apply_alternatives+0x84/0x86
> > > [9.157784] [<ffffffff800029be>] apply_module_alternatives+0x10/0x1a
> > > [9.164113] [<ffffffff80008fcc>] module_finalize+0x5e/0x7a
> > > [9.169583] [<ffffffff80085cd6>] load_module+0xfd8/0x179c
> > > [9.174965] [<ffffffff80086630>] init_module_from_file+0x76/0xaa
> > > [9.180948] [<ffffffff800867f6>] __riscv_sys_finit_module+0x176/0x2a8
> > > [9.187365] [<ffffffff80889862>] do_trap_ecall_u+0xbe/0x130
> > > [9.192922] [<ffffffff808920bc>] ret_from_exception+0x0/0x64
> > > [9.198573] Code: 0009 b7e9 6797 014d a783 85a7 c799 4785 0717 0100 (0123) aef7
> > > [9.205994] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> > >
> > > This is because we called riscv_noncoherent_supported() for all the stages
> > > during IOCP probe. riscv_noncoherent_supported() function sets
> > > noncoherent_supported variable to true which has an annotation set to
> > > "__ro_after_init" due to which we were seeing the above splat. Fix this by
> > > probing IOCP during boot stage only.
> > >
> > > Fixes: e021ae7f5145 ("riscv: errata: Add Andes alternative ports")
> > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/errata/andes/errata.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/errata/andes/errata.c
> > > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ void __init_or_module andes_errata_patch_func(struct alt_entry *begin, struct al
> > > unsigned long archid, unsigned long impid,
> > > unsigned int stage)
> > > {
> > > - errata_probe_iocp(stage, archid, impid);
> > > + if (stage == RISCV_ALTERNATIVES_BOOT)
> > > + errata_probe_iocp(stage, archid, impid);
> > >
> > > /* we have nothing to patch here ATM so just return back */
> > > }
> >
> > I believe this still causes errata_probe_iocp() to be called twice:
> > once from apply_boot_alternatives(), and a second time (if CONFIG_MMU=y)
> > from apply_vdso_alternatives(). Is that OK?
> >
> Hmm during my testing I didnt see this being called twice (maybe
> because alternative section was not found) in
> apply_vdso_alternatives().
>
> > Perhaps instead you want to add a check to errata_probe_iocp() (after
> > the check for CONFIG_ERRATA_ANDES_CMO), to bail out if the function
> > was called before?
> >
> OK so I'll have a static variable ("riscv_noncoherent_set") in
> errata_probe_iocp() and if it's being set I'll bail out early.
Just call it "done" or "called", it can be a local static variable ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
