From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A480C433E1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 09:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231DF206C0 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 09:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="BpDbODW6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726617AbgHQJwI (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 05:52:08 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:38240 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726089AbgHQJwH (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 05:52:07 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f26be0071e1cf3fa1f5ba15.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f26:be00:71e1:cf3f:a1f5:ba15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 7072E1EC026E; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:52:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1597657926; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=7WEhDtOpHgB6ZDw7sEsLsnf2zJDtK9jInhSYuTQntfI=; b=BpDbODW6po4EessYTVOW0Y1TD7TOIWqu0denCgIRuqNND/JNRjpQrUilarAnAac1E4byk2 rvcbx34cf/jdykExec0uG8URTAJ5qvLGgVQ99gCWJx+fR0GZLPKFc9z6qAv5TKnbpMmNXf dKcvm+aLyPlZllJ8uEmRFiSFasff43M= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:53:02 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Gregor Herburger Cc: york.sun@nxp.com, mchehab@kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, james.morse@arm.com, rrichter@marvell.com, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] edac: fsl_ddr_edac: fix expected data message Message-ID: <20200817095302.GD549@zn.tnic> References: <20200724111846.24432-1-gregor.herburger@ew.tq-group.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200724111846.24432-1-gregor.herburger@ew.tq-group.com> Sender: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:18:46PM +0200, Gregor Herburger wrote: > In some cases a wrong 'Expected Data' is calculated and reported. In some cases? Which cases? You need to expand that sentence with more details as to what the problem is because I'm not getting any smarter from it. > When comparing Expected/Captured Data this looks like dual bit errors when > only a single bit error occurred. > > On my aarch64 machine it prints something similar to this: > [ 311.103794] EDAC FSL_DDR MC0: Faulty Data bit: 36 > [ 311.108490] EDAC FSL_DDR MC0: Expected Data / ECC: 0xffffffef_ffffffff / 0x80000059 > [ 311.116135] EDAC FSL_DDR MC0: Captured Data / ECC: 0xffffffff_ffffffef / 0x59 Is that output before or after your change? 0xffffffef is with bit 4 XORed and cap_high was -1 before, cap_low is -1 too. The expected data syndrome has bit 31 set?! Yeah, I'm confused. Please explain the issue in greater detail, try structuring it this way: Problem is A. It happens because of B. Fix it by doing C. (Potentially do D). For more detailed info, see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, Section "2) Describe your changes". Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette