From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:27:43 +0000
Subject: Cortex-A9 SCU + ARM_ERRATA_764369
In-Reply-To: <5638E61C.30406@free.fr>
References: <5638E61C.30406@free.fr>
Message-ID: <20151103172743.GE4049@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 05:51:40PM +0100, Mason wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm using a dual Cortex-A9 MPCore r3p0 setup.
> Thus, I have selected the following ERRATA work-arounds:
> 
> 	select ARM_ERRATA_754322
> 	select ARM_ERRATA_764369 if SMP
> 	select ARM_ERRATA_775420
> 
> (I hope I didn't miss any.)
> 
> config ARM_ERRATA_764369
> 	bool "ARM errata: Data cache line maintenance operation by MVA may not succeed"
> 	depends on CPU_V7 && SMP
> 	help
> 	  This option enables the workaround for erratum 764369
> 	  affecting Cortex-A9 MPCore with two or more processors (all
> 	  current revisions). Under certain timing circumstances, a data
> 	  cache line maintenance operation by MVA targeting an Inner
> 	  Shareable memory region may fail to proceed up to either the
> 	  Point of Coherency or to the Point of Unification of the
> 	  system. This workaround adds a DSB instruction before the
> 	  relevant cache maintenance functions and sets a specific bit
> 	  in the diagnostic control register of the SCU.
> 
> I'm confused by some code in scu_enable() introduced by commit f630c1bdfbf8f
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_764369
> 	/* Cortex-A9 only */
> 	if ((read_cpuid_id() & 0xff0ffff0) == 0x410fc090) {
> 		scu_ctrl = readl_relaxed(scu_base + 0x30);
> 		if (!(scu_ctrl & 1))
> 			writel_relaxed(scu_ctrl | 0x1, scu_base + 0x30);
> 	}
> #endif
> 
> <confused>
> What is scu_base + 0x30? (SCU diagnostic control register?)
> I don't see this register/offset documented in
> Cortex-A9 MPCore r3p0 Technical Reference Manual (2.2 SCU registers)

It's documented (admittedly very sparsely) in the Software Developers
Errata Notice for Cortex-A9 processors, in the section regarding erratum
764369.

Thanks,
Mark.