Re: Multi-platform, and secure-only ARM errata workarounds

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 02/26/2013 11:11 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:01:30AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> The conditional in that statement makes me wonder which of the following
>> operations will fault in non-secure mode:
>>
>> 1) Reading from the diagnostic register.
> 
> Won't fault.
> 
>> 2) Writing to the diagnostic register, of a value the same as what's
>> already there.
> 
> Will fault.
> 
>> 3) Writing to the diagnostic register, of a value different than what's
>> already there.
> 
> Will fault.
> 
>> Would the following not fault in both secure and non-secure mode:
>>
>> read diagnostic register
>> if desired bit already set:
>>     b 1f
>> set desired bit
>> write value back to diagnostic register
>> 1:
> 
> That is exactly what we do

Well, I asked because for the 3 WARs in question at least, that isn't
what the code does. For example, from proc-v7.s:

#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_742230
	cmp	r6, #0x22		@ only present up to r2p2
	mrcle	p15, 0, r10, c15, c0, 1	@ read diagnostic register
	orrle	r10, r10, #1 << 4	@ set bit #4
	mcrle	p15, 0, r10, c15, c0, 1	@ write diagnostic register
#endif

(unless that orrle affects the flags and hence skips the mcrle, but I
don't think so.)

> - the problem is, that if you require
> workaround X to be enabled, and a different platform has that errata
> fixed, then the other platform will not enable the work-around, and
> the bit will be clear.

The 3 WARs in question are conditional upon the CPU's revision and patch
number (which I'll call rNpN). I assume that any Cortex-A9 with the
affected rNpN would require the WAR enabled; is it possible that someone
could have fixed a particular core bug directly (and hence not changed
rNpN), rather than just updated to a new core revision? If not, the
sequence above should be safe, and avoid all the issues you pointed out.
I guess anything is possible though. Perhaps this depends a lot on how
ARM licenses their cores and fixes and/or if anyone with an
architectural license would have applied that to fix a regular A9 core...