From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B4A914830C for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.137 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706892284; cv=none; b=kkjyq2/GOYnx9VvXvrmjox/mvvxUrq8zUvsXfl6RYo2MAfg113Jk7dKXgEaWOApiGkBW8+qcXGNn8kxpW+WUZF6xIXeSELnmvnZilhxRLILnOFaZHNZHg5Ck+nA0ANFg6wf0sZ0hqHQLrsvyyjRk8NAtmKrLVIGWtpojSwD3ysw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706892284; c=relaxed/simple; bh=91dKtYL6nn7sT6XBkJUZhgPHoMOoFPhDfSgFduym7O0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=E7pb/O7NzZ6ixN6GeLoKG3eNbtyDB3lNZwUKUwj0caRJ+NjRs7H9MEjmwJYzkXgO2HdrsWbSP5gzeNvXM7MHW6MfbAjBJ/THOQCGqerszSqYkNxlL+iEyPvl+KCk12YyHhoxx7F5bJZUhM9an5dBI3nWn/uOZzgd/TJ9xYtCraI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.137 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788E642729 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 788E642729 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V3AxtYtu3WV7 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E13FB4264A for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org E13FB4264A Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TRM3Q6Gpcz67pnj; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:41:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B846A1400D4; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:44:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:31 +0000 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:31 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: "Russell King (Oracle)" CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , , , James Morse , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 10/15] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match_gicc() Message-ID: <20240202164431.00006f09@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:50:27 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > From: James Morse > > gic_acpi_match_gicc() is only called via gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(). > It should only count the number of enabled redistributors, but it > also tries to sanity check the GICC entry, currently returning an > error if the Enabled bit is set, but the gicr_base_address is zero. > > Adding support for the online-capable bit to the sanity check will > complicate it, for no benefit. The existing check implicitly depends on > gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions() previous failing to find any GICR regions > (as it is valid to have gicr_base_address of zero if the redistributors > are described via a GICR entry). > > Instead of complicating the check, remove it. Failures that happen at > this point cause the irqchip not to register, meaning no irqs can be > requested. The kernel grinds to a panic() pretty quickly. > > Without the check, MADT tables that exhibit this problem are still > caught by gic_populate_rdist(), which helpfully also prints what went > wrong: > | CPU4: mpidr 100 has no re-distributor! > > Signed-off-by: James Morse > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) Does what it says on the tin. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron 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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D4EAC4828F for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:45:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=335x7hUQWHCTih1CBoDyL83ePXF4J9/TzYrN32AFORM=; b=j1BChauR5Flfb+ oCW55MGPddYBHUMMaTfkvP9wT+8Jdgnt7bFDRV+neGY6Qwzqa63FGuoRkupnjut8KVYkmkXfFMGVW 9384V0m0rskM4aQ682A86oFYLini36OKNWu7mjnRWkyBFlbmiCb4u2bsaKe2zGo1pb70yQFzz4xCI px4C2UhCcSzCqnl95Iz+zghseZhpQvy7HXBDHOJkZX51HZf7UHDoq5N8EOKd0eErWgC1CKnhEd4hx 6ylyohsJjnjIk9wkxARckgoofBo1cs25i3WLjTKxkWk5dUWGxTZZ2QQGV2vgWxNB9532ZB1/BLEIW vLg/V8LnAePoWgpgGBUA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rVwex-0000000COPR-26CC; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 16:44:59 +0000 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rVwes-0000000COIS-1AJX; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 16:44:56 +0000 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TRM3Q6Gpcz67pnj; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:41:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B846A1400D4; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:44:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:31 +0000 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:31 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: "Russell King (Oracle)" CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , , , James Morse , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 10/15] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match_gicc() Message-ID: <20240202164431.00006f09@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240202_084454_509663_9D7606C3 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 10.99 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:50:27 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > From: James Morse > > gic_acpi_match_gicc() is only called via gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(). > It should only count the number of enabled redistributors, but it > also tries to sanity check the GICC entry, currently returning an > error if the Enabled bit is set, but the gicr_base_address is zero. > > Adding support for the online-capable bit to the sanity check will > complicate it, for no benefit. The existing check implicitly depends on > gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions() previous failing to find any GICR regions > (as it is valid to have gicr_base_address of zero if the redistributors > are described via a GICR entry). > > Instead of complicating the check, remove it. Failures that happen at > this point cause the irqchip not to register, meaning no irqs can be > requested. The kernel grinds to a panic() pretty quickly. > > Without the check, MADT tables that exhibit this problem are still > caught by gic_populate_rdist(), which helpfully also prints what went > wrong: > | CPU4: mpidr 100 has no re-distributor! > > Signed-off-by: James Morse > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) Does what it says on the tin. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv 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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96D28C4828F for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:45:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=muHstvEIIsPywVpudT/9TIGwMAgxOMinmRn25uuzV4E=; b=VT3NyD2yoxPftW c2Dyv20auwfz9Uirzphxh5/46BAayWtFSPr9lGZohNXpzqhlnHCDY6ShOy4Z1wphTSU4eRtnZAmpY XhPQpdUSwDmx3NIXKcHatll3vIYvtFfhRncDaNniGOlSEuEMCfQwOFg+XZKF8cf9Bg+B5Hr83gjgy gZ+FTBaHSvFaIV8hmU5Fh4n4aoonuEmPtctGWBlHpEsmueJ4tuMcvx+davpIN6pYA8eDUljrqwYbl 0CLZmF7PeJzYObJ7h8vGESuiIvkrrQtCl0JehwIaOe5n09zDsZZkcpHLyWjvhNt3IXFsL8eFXsHko xv7XcPQzF98WCrZJ1I2w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rVwew-0000000COOp-3Cgb; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 16:44:58 +0000 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rVwes-0000000COIS-1AJX; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 16:44:56 +0000 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TRM3Q6Gpcz67pnj; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:41:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B846A1400D4; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:44:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:31 +0000 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:31 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: "Russell King (Oracle)" CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , , , James Morse , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 10/15] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match_gicc() Message-ID: <20240202164431.00006f09@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240202_084454_509663_9D7606C3 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 10.99 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:50:27 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > From: James Morse > > gic_acpi_match_gicc() is only called via gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(). > It should only count the number of enabled redistributors, but it > also tries to sanity check the GICC entry, currently returning an > error if the Enabled bit is set, but the gicr_base_address is zero. > > Adding support for the online-capable bit to the sanity check will > complicate it, for no benefit. The existing check implicitly depends on > gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions() previous failing to find any GICR regions > (as it is valid to have gicr_base_address of zero if the redistributors > are described via a GICR entry). > > Instead of complicating the check, remove it. Failures that happen at > this point cause the irqchip not to register, meaning no irqs can be > requested. The kernel grinds to a panic() pretty quickly. > > Without the check, MADT tables that exhibit this problem are still > caught by gic_populate_rdist(), which helpfully also prints what went > wrong: > | CPU4: mpidr 100 has no re-distributor! > > Signed-off-by: James Morse > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) Does what it says on the tin. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel