Re: [PATCH v12] acpi, apei, arm64: APEI initial support for aarch64.

[Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>]

Hi Borislav

On 4 August 2016 at 17:48, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 04:57:44PM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>
>> This commit provides APEI arch-specific bits for aarch64
>>
>> Meanwhile,
>> (1)add a new subfunction "hest_ia32_init" for
>> "acpi_disable_cmcff" which is used by IA-32 Architecture
>> Corrected Machine Check (CMC).
>> (2)move HEST type (ACPI_HEST_TYPE_IA32_CORRECTED_CHECK) checking to
>> a generic place.
>> (3)select HAVE_ACPI_APEI when EFI and ACPI is set on ARM64,
>> because arch_apei_get_mem_attribute is using efi_mem_attributes on ARM64.
>>
>> [Fu Wei: improve && upstream]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>> Tested-by: Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang <zjzhang@codeaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>
>> Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> Tested-by: Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@codeaurora.org>
>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>> ---
>
> ...
>
>> @@ -110,8 +111,21 @@ static inline const char *acpi_get_enable_method(int cpu)
>>  }
>>
>>  #ifdef       CONFIG_ACPI_APEI
>> +#define acpi_disable_cmcff 1
>
> What does that mean? ARM doesn't have firmware-first mode?
>
> A piece of comment please.

Thanks I have added a comment on v13, please check.

>
>>  pgprot_t arch_apei_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr);
>> -#endif
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Despite its name, this function must still broadcast the TLB
>> + * invalidation in order to ensure other CPUs don't up with junk
>                                                       ^
>                                                      end

Fixed, thanks :-)

>
>> + * entries as a result of speculation. Unusually, its also called in
>> + * IRQ context (ghes_iounmap_irq) so if we ever need to use IPIs for
>> + * TLB broadcasting, then we're in trouble here.
>> + */
>> +static inline void arch_apei_flush_tlb_one(unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> +     flush_tlb_kernel_range(addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE);
>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_APEI */
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
>>  int arm64_acpi_numa_init(void);
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/apei.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/apei.c
>> index c280df6..ea3046e 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/apei.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/apei.c
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/hest.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/hest.c
>> index 20b3fcf..792a0d9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/hest.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/hest.c
>> @@ -232,8 +243,9 @@ void __init acpi_hest_init(void)
>>               goto err;
>>       }
>>
>> -     if (!acpi_disable_cmcff)
>> -             apei_hest_parse(hest_parse_cmc, NULL);
>> +     rc = hest_ia32_init();
>
> Why do you need a separate hest_ia32_init() here?
>
> You can do
>
>         rc = apei_hest_parse(hest_parse_cmc, NULL);
>
> directly here AFAICT.

yes, we can do that.

But the reason for a  separate hest_ia32_init() is:
For now(ACPI 6.1), we have three IA-32 Architecture-specific error
source structures, maybe we will parse them later.
So I made this hest_ia32_init() for all these structures. maybe we can do :
---
 static int __init hest_parse_cmc(struct acpi_hest_header *hest_hdr, void *data)
 {
 if (hest_hdr->type != ACPI_HEST_TYPE_IA32_CORRECTED_CHECK)
 return 0;

 if (!acpi_disable_cmcff)
 return !arch_apei_enable_cmcff(hest_hdr, data);

 return 0;
}

 static int __init hest_parse_mce(struct acpi_hest_header *hest_hdr, void *data)
 {
 if (hest_hdr->type != ACPI_HEST_TYPE_IA32_CHECK)
 return 0;

// do something

 return 0;
}

 static int __init hest_parse_nmi(struct acpi_hest_header *hest_hdr, void *data)
 {
 if (hest_hdr->type != ACPI_HEST_TYPE_IA32_NMI)
 return 0;

// do something

 return 0;
}

static inline int __init hest_ia32_init(void)
{
  int ret = apei_hest_parse(hest_parse_nmi, NULL);
  if (ret)
     return ret;

  ret = apei_hest_parse(hest_parse_mce, NULL);
  if (ret)
     return ret;

   return apei_hest_parse(hest_parse_cmc, NULL);
}
---

But it is just my thought, please correct me if I misunderstand
something. Thanks :-)

>
>> +     if (rc)
>> +             goto err;
>>
>>       if (!ghes_disable) {
>>               rc = apei_hest_parse(hest_parse_ghes_count, &ghes_count);
>> --
>> 2.5.5
>>
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
>
> SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> --



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel