From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/16] x86/mtrr: get MTRR number and support TOP_MEM2 Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:02:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20180904080241.GB32615@zn.tnic> References: <36ea05160d886ebf8d4a645c0fe8efdc9d6760c3.1535459013.git.puwen@hygon.cn> <20180903190438.GF10249@zn.tnic> <946157a5-fdb2-a45a-63aa-97e9d602e6f0@hygon.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <946157a5-fdb2-a45a-63aa-97e9d602e6f0@hygon.cn> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pu Wen Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 11:02:41AM +0800, Pu Wen wrote: > > > - if (!((boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) && > > > - (boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 0x0f))) > > > + if (!((boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && > > > + boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 0x0f) || > > > + boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON)) > > > > Why are you even touching this statement? The function returns early on > > !X86_VENDOR_AMD. > > The statement is briefly equal to !(X86_VENDOR_AMD || X86_VENDOR_HYGON). > So the function will not return early on !X86_VENDOR_AMD. :-) I meant the *original* version - not yours! My question is why are you even touching a K8-old BIOS workaround?! Your commit message says: The MtrrFixDramModEn bit on Hygon platform should also be set to 1 during BIOS initialization of the fixed MTRRs, then cleared to 0 for operation. Is your BIOS already broken? Searching the net for pr_err(FW_WARN "MTRR: CPU %u: SYSCFG[MtrrFixDramModEn]" " not cleared by BIOS, clearing this bit\n", shows only old mails so I'm going to assume this got fixed, finally! And you probably have received a *fixed* BIOS even, allegedly. So what's up? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:33662 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726052AbeIDM1D (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2018 08:27:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:02:41 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/16] x86/mtrr: get MTRR number and support TOP_MEM2 Message-ID: <20180904080241.GB32615@zn.tnic> References: <36ea05160d886ebf8d4a645c0fe8efdc9d6760c3.1535459013.git.puwen@hygon.cn> <20180903190438.GF10249@zn.tnic> <946157a5-fdb2-a45a-63aa-97e9d602e6f0@hygon.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <946157a5-fdb2-a45a-63aa-97e9d602e6f0@hygon.cn> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pu Wen Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20180904080241.dzM-mp6ifqR8IhVeAEktv_vMBmUnYjkIJTJVufI9PvU@z> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 11:02:41AM +0800, Pu Wen wrote: > > > - if (!((boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) && > > > - (boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 0x0f))) > > > + if (!((boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && > > > + boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 0x0f) || > > > + boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON)) > > > > Why are you even touching this statement? The function returns early on > > !X86_VENDOR_AMD. > > The statement is briefly equal to !(X86_VENDOR_AMD || X86_VENDOR_HYGON). > So the function will not return early on !X86_VENDOR_AMD. :-) I meant the *original* version - not yours! My question is why are you even touching a K8-old BIOS workaround?! Your commit message says: The MtrrFixDramModEn bit on Hygon platform should also be set to 1 during BIOS initialization of the fixed MTRRs, then cleared to 0 for operation. Is your BIOS already broken? Searching the net for pr_err(FW_WARN "MTRR: CPU %u: SYSCFG[MtrrFixDramModEn]" " not cleared by BIOS, clearing this bit\n", shows only old mails so I'm going to assume this got fixed, finally! And you probably have received a *fixed* BIOS even, allegedly. So what's up? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.