Re: [PATCH 2/4] RAS: ATL: Expand helpers for adding and removing base and hole

[Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>]

On 3/25/24 15:27, John Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:28:48AM -0400, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 12:35, John Allen wrote:
>>> Data fabric 4.5 denormalization will need to frequently add and remove
>>
>> More specifically, the non-power-of-2 cases will need this.
>>
>>> the base and the legacy MMIO hole. Modify existing helpers to improve DF
>>> 4.5 denormalization flow and add helper to remove the base and hole.
>>
>> Please write the what/context, why/issue, and how/fix information as
>> separate paragraphs even if they're just a single sentence each. I think
>> this helps to find the details more easily.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c     | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>    drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h |  3 +++
>>>    2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c
>>> index c1710d233adb..cafdfc57d929 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c
>>> @@ -49,15 +49,26 @@ static bool legacy_hole_en(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>>>    	return FIELD_GET(DF_LEGACY_MMIO_HOLE_EN, reg);
>>>    }
>>> -static int add_legacy_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>>> +static u64 add_legacy_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
>>>    {
>>>    	if (!legacy_hole_en(ctx))
>>> -		return 0;
>>> +		return addr;
>>> -	if (ctx->addr >= df_cfg.dram_hole_base)
>>> -		ctx->addr += (BIT_ULL(32) - df_cfg.dram_hole_base);
>>> +	if (addr >= df_cfg.dram_hole_base)
>>> +		addr += (BIT_ULL(32) - df_cfg.dram_hole_base);
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return addr;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static u64 remove_legacy_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (!legacy_hole_en(ctx))
>>> +		return addr;
>>> +
>>> +	if (addr >= df_cfg.dram_hole_base)
>>> +		addr -= (BIT_ULL(32) - df_cfg.dram_hole_base);
>>> +
>>> +	return addr;
>>>    }
>>>    static u64 get_base_addr(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>>> @@ -72,14 +83,16 @@ static u64 get_base_addr(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>>>    	return base_addr << DF_DRAM_BASE_LIMIT_LSB;
>>>    }
>>> -static int add_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>>> +u64 add_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
>>>    {
>>> -	ctx->ret_addr += get_base_addr(ctx);
>>> -
>>> -	if (add_legacy_hole(ctx))
>>> -		return -EINVAL;
>>> +	addr += get_base_addr(ctx);
>>> +	return add_legacy_hole(ctx, addr);
>>> +}
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +u64 remove_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
>>> +{
>>> +	addr -= get_base_addr(ctx);
>>> +	return remove_legacy_hole(ctx, addr);
>>
>> This should be the inverse of the "add" operation, I think. So remove
>> the legacy hole first, then remove the base address.
>>
>>>    }
>>>    static bool late_hole_remove(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>>> @@ -123,14 +136,14 @@ unsigned long norm_to_sys_addr(u8 socket_id, u8 die_id, u8 coh_st_inst_id, unsig
>>>    	if (denormalize_address(&ctx))
>>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>> -	if (!late_hole_remove(&ctx) && add_base_and_hole(&ctx))
>>> -		return -EINVAL;
>>> +	if (!late_hole_remove(&ctx))
>>> +		ctx.ret_addr = add_base_and_hole(&ctx, ctx.ret_addr);
>>>    	if (dehash_address(&ctx))
>>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>> -	if (late_hole_remove(&ctx) && add_base_and_hole(&ctx))
>>> -		return -EINVAL;
>>> +	if (late_hole_remove(&ctx))
>>> +		ctx.ret_addr = add_base_and_hole(&ctx, ctx.ret_addr);
>>>    	if (addr_over_limit(&ctx))
>>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h
>>> index 1413c8ddc6c5..05b870fcb24e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h
>>> @@ -236,6 +236,9 @@ int dehash_address(struct addr_ctx *ctx);
>>>    unsigned long norm_to_sys_addr(u8 socket_id, u8 die_id, u8 coh_st_inst_id, unsigned long addr);
>>>    unsigned long convert_umc_mca_addr_to_sys_addr(struct atl_err *err);
>>> +u64 add_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr);
>>> +u64 remove_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr);
>>
>> remove_base_and_hole() is only used in denormalize.c, correct? So why
>> not define it there as static? Other than trying to keep the code
>> together and symmetrical, I mean.
> 
> In addition to keeping the two inverse functions together,
> remove_base_and_hole depends on other functions in core.c. So if we
> don't expose remove_base_and_hole in the header, then we would need to
> expose get_base_addr and remove_legacy_hole in the header.
> Alternatively, we could move remove_legacy_hole to denormalize.c and
> expose get_base_addr and legacy_hole_en in the header instead. So
> exposing one function that's the inverse of the other just looks better
> to me than exposing two.
> 

Right, fair point. So what you have is good then.

Thanks,
Yazen