All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com>
Cc: "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Subject: [RFC,1/2] drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:17:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180315101725.GC27816@pd.tnic> (raw)

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:20:18AM +0000, York Sun wrote:
> The discussion led to using device tree to specify which cores have this
> feature. Since this feature is "implementation dependent", I can only
> confirm it is available on A53 core, and partially on A57 core (lacking
> error injection). It is not generic to ARM64 cores.

So my ARM person is telling me A53 is little and A57 is big.

In any case, I'd like to have a sane collection of RAS functionality,
either per uarch or per vendor. So I can imagine having edac_a53,
edac_a57, etc.

But not per functional unit. Especially if the functionality is shared
between core designs.

In that case, we'll have to do something like fsl_ddr_edac being shared
between MPC85xx and layerscape.

> We can leave this patch floating. If someone else finds it useful, we
> can resume the discussion on how to generalize it.

Yes. If you want to do a nxp_edac or so which supports your hardware,
that's fine. And then have the different functional units get built into
a final edac driver, that's fine with me too. Other drivers will reuse
those functional units since they're stock and should adhere to the
design...

Thx.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com>
Cc: "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:17:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180315101725.GC27816@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR04MB20785DE79A7D33D453FF79869AD00@VI1PR04MB2078.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:20:18AM +0000, York Sun wrote:
> The discussion led to using device tree to specify which cores have this
> feature. Since this feature is "implementation dependent", I can only
> confirm it is available on A53 core, and partially on A57 core (lacking
> error injection). It is not generic to ARM64 cores.

So my ARM person is telling me A53 is little and A57 is big.

In any case, I'd like to have a sane collection of RAS functionality,
either per uarch or per vendor. So I can imagine having edac_a53,
edac_a57, etc.

But not per functional unit. Especially if the functionality is shared
between core designs.

In that case, we'll have to do something like fsl_ddr_edac being shared
between MPC85xx and layerscape.

> We can leave this patch floating. If someone else finds it useful, we
> can resume the discussion on how to generalize it.

Yes. If you want to do a nxp_edac or so which supports your hardware,
that's fine. And then have the different functional units get built into
a final edac driver, that's fine with me too. Other drivers will reuse
those functional units since they're stock and should adhere to the
design...

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

             reply	other threads:[~2018-03-15 10:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-15 10:17 Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-03-15 10:17 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57 Borislav Petkov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-03-15 15:15 [RFC,1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15 15:15 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15 15:15 ` York Sun
2018-03-15 15:15 [RFC,1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15 15:15 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15 15:15 ` York Sun
2018-03-15 15:10 [RFC,1/2] " Mark Rutland
2018-03-15 15:10 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " Mark Rutland
2018-03-15 15:07 [RFC,1/2] " Mark Rutland
2018-03-15 15:07 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " Mark Rutland
2018-03-15 15:07 ` Mark Rutland
2018-03-15 14:55 [RFC,1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15 14:55 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15 13:33 [RFC,1/2] " James Morse
2018-03-15 13:33 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " James Morse
2018-03-15 13:33 ` James Morse
2018-03-15  1:20 [RFC,1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15  1:20 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15  1:07 [RFC,1/2] " Borislav Petkov
2018-03-15  1:07 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " Borislav Petkov
2018-03-15  0:17 [RFC,2/2] arm64: Update device tree for ls1043a and ls1046a to enable edac driver York Sun
2018-03-15  0:17 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] " York Sun
2018-03-15  0:17 [RFC,1/2] drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57 York Sun
2018-03-15  0:17 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] " York Sun

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180315101725.GC27816@pd.tnic \
    --to=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=york.sun@nxp.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.