From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:06:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:37319 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6832655Ab3JHFGgF9jRX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:06:36 +0200 Received: from scotty.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9856YGw002781; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:06:34 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r9856Xex002780; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:06:33 +0200 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:06:33 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Markos Chandras Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Leonid Yegoshin Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add printing of ES bit when cache error occurs. Message-ID: <20131008050633.GD1615@linux-mips.org> References: <1381137952-18340-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1381137952-18340-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 38247 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:25:52AM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: > From: Leonid Yegoshin > > Print out the source of request that caused the error (ES bit) when > a cache error exception occurs. The reason ES isn't being printed is that not all processors that support a cache error exception have an ES bit. The R4000 has it, R5000 doesn't, R10000 CacheErr looks rather different - and in fact MIPS32/64 make the entire register optional and its details implementation specific. Don't even ask me anymore which processor the implementation in the kernel is trying to support - probably something R7000ish, at least that's what guess from the 1385617929e09545f9858785ea3dc1068fedfde1 commit log. Short of some fancy engineering, I'd suggest throwing in a switch statement and per processor type printks just as in parity_protection_init. Ralf