Re: [PATCH v2 11/20] mips: MAAR: Use more precise address mask

Serge Semin
2020-05-07T19:13:53Z

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 01:09:51PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:42:29PM +0300, Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru wrote:
> > From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
> >
> > Indeed according to the P5600/P6000 manual the MAAR pair register
> > address field either takes [12:31] bits for 32-bits non-XPA systems
> > and [12:35] otherwise. In any case the current address mask is just
> > wrong for 64-bit and 32-bits XPA chips. So lets extend it to 39-bits
> > value. This shall cover the 64-bits architecture and systems with XPA
> > enabled, and won't cause any problem for non-XPA 32-bit systems, since
> > the value will be just truncated when written to the 32-bits register.
>
> according to MIPS32 Priveleged Resoure Architecture Rev. 6.02
> ADDR spans from bit 12 to bit 55. So your patch fits only for P5600.

> Does the wider mask cause any problems ?

No, it won't. Bits written to the [40:62] range will be just ignored,
while reading from there should return zeros. Setting GENMASK_ULL(55, 12)
would also work. Though this solution is a bit workarounding because
MIPS_MAAR_ADDR wouldn't reflect the real mask of the ADDR field. Something
like the next macro would work better:

+#define MIPS_MAAR_ADDR \
+({ \
+ u64 __mask; \
+ \
+ if (cpu_has_lpa && read_c0_pagegrain() & PG_ELPA) { \
+ __mask = GENMASK_ULL(55, 12); \
+ else \
+ __mask = GENMASK_ULL(31, 12); \
+ \
+ __mask; \
+})

What do you think? What is better: the macro above or setting
GENMASK_ULL(55, 12)?

BTW I've just figured out, that since XPA is currently only supported by
kernels with CPU_MIPS32x config enabled, then only MIPS32 may have extended
physical addressing of 2^60 bytes if CONFIG_XPA is enabled. Generic MIPS64
doesn't support the extended phys addressing so only 2^36 bytes are available
on such platforms. (Loongson64 doesn't count, the platform code sets the
PG_ELPA bit manually in kernel-entry-init.h)

-Sergey

>
> Thomas.
>
> --
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]