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 CC994CA5FDD for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 12:43:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=cRJpN84UVix6BcTqUJ5o6iEEWxr1NuZClp/FPA6fygI=; b=YpHTywnx/AWdt1WWK6OLowRcLH zokVBD4wo0MzyxhxgnNKsevnJF0y8sl0HHacgxoLrI9bvKqMJAJelu/At1TgsEK2WEV5BunIecv4e R+Tu+sQX6YaTECn7x726OTXtfIUAGb+ONzaJ9tZ/T5A7PfPc2aZzVABOr5KDUBuyMCHmQ9stMYI8H byzWonKpJTKrneggwirFP/44vi9pXf147WlIa5PVPDedtvkABPtSBqaYA+1XoWOQWqofR61dbJUdu oJYFWUWFyUbQFb9WUKe7wxRqRzO6HlucfjWZ/kBkiPr8XrM3+g16aI+K/JZQD7uIwl1jBT4588iy5 mmbE4V+w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xCcbt-0000000BbLs-22BA; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 12:43:33 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xCcbs-0000000BbLj-16nd for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 12:43:32 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED8560A70; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 12:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 726981F000FF; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 12:43:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790945011; bh=cRJpN84UVix6BcTqUJ5o6iEEWxr1NuZClp/FPA6fygI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=TCtr2o36F1O/MpLu8S3DVZvnMEXNteH1EF159izrvp2NbFmzHYg/yyMwMCVGnDPCk qvwN0+PMOWC97aXUjmVOOWsr10Jr46yrcaBEcGol3Ky11scrHfRRnkMGdyTXjmD6ik RzLd8OYLXhBIqDBEC9ujOKGRv9KWtgQPpOA0yzNJJJOru709QUBP7XTw5qK1yhn+Ro 6bCvCbwjms+nzquCZXMHQQZEUcvM66224A424lehzwFH2brMyWpWPPWH7knLk1UL9b /5L8tRsoV2wbh15rD+hc8Ij9SQ9a61teJdCWW1pPSHs909dGbK+SFztY9ArfH0EkJI lnuXt+pa9xdOA== Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2026 13:43:24 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Tomohiro Misono Cc: Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , Marc Zyngier , Thomas Gleixner , Radu Rendec , Kohei Enju , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: tlb: Add tlbi workaround for FUJITSU-MONAKA Erratum E#030001 Message-ID: References: <20261002-monaka-fix-for-upstream-v1-0-4aec0b0cbe34@fujitsu.com> <20261002-monaka-fix-for-upstream-v1-2-4aec0b0cbe34@fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261002-monaka-fix-for-upstream-v1-2-4aec0b0cbe34@fujitsu.com> 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: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 07:26:50PM +0900, Tomohiro Misono wrote: > FUJITSU-MONAKA Erratum E#030001 affects FUJITSU-MONAKA CPU > when using 64k page size. > > On affected FUJITSU-MONAKA CPUs, range-based TLBI operations > targeting a VA or IPA may fail to invalidate TLB entries when > addr[34:29] == all 1 && addr[28:0] == 0 for 512MB mappings. > The affected instructions are: > RVA[L]E{1,2,3}*, RVAA[L]E1*, and RIPAS2[L]E1*. > > Work around the erratum by issuing additional non-range > TLBI instructions corresponding to the affected VA or IPA > range-based TLBI operations. Why don't we just avoid using range invalidation on these parts instead? Will