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

[Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>]

On Wednesday 27 February 2013 12:19 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:30:08AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> Hmm.  I've not really been taking much notice of how these work-arounds
> all work - maybe it's safe to write this diagnostic register from
> non-secure mode then?
>
> I have noticed this kind of fishy thing with OMAP4430 running in non-secure
> mode - some registers I thought would cause an exception don't.  No idea
> why not...
>
They do fault on OMAP. We discussed the issue in the past [1] [2].
The only way we could get around is to disable those WA flags in config.
I was told to move such requirements to boot-loaders then

Regards,
Santosh

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1743211/
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/10/321