Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] Qcom: LLCC/EDAC: Fix base address used for LLCC banks

Manivannan Sadhasivam
2022-12-19T18:33:23Z

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 01:23:40PM -0600, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 06:02:58PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > The Qualcomm LLCC/EDAC drivers were using a fixed register stride for
> > accessing the (Control and Status Regsiters) CSRs of each LLCC bank.
> > This offset only works for some SoCs like SDM845 for which driver support
> > was initially added.
> >
> > But the later SoCs use different register stride that vary between the
> > banks with holes in-between. So it is not possible to use a single register
> > stride for accessing the CSRs of each bank. By doing so could result in a
> > crash with the current drivers. So far this crash is not reported since
> > EDAC_QCOM driver is not enabled in ARM64 defconfig and no one tested the
> > driver extensively by triggering the EDAC IRQ (that's where each bank
> > CSRs are accessed).
> >
> > For fixing this issue, let's obtain the base address of each LLCC bank from
> > devicetree and get rid of the fixed stride.
> >
> > This series affects multiple platforms but I have only tested this on
> > SM8250 and SM8450. Testing on other platforms is welcomed.
> >
>
> Tested-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> # sa8540p-ride
>

I dropped your tested-by tag in v3 as some of the patch content have been
changed. Please test v3 and share your feedback.

Thanks,
Mani

> I took this for a quick spin on the qdrive3 I've got access to without
> any issue:
>
> [root@localhost ~]# modprobe qcom_edac
> [root@localhost ~]# dmesg | grep -i edac
> [ 0.620723] EDAC MC: Ver: 3.0.0
> [ 1.165417] ghes_edac: GHES probing device list is empty
> [ 594.688103] EDAC DEVICE0: Giving out device to module qcom_llcc_edac controller llcc: DEV qcom_llcc_edac (INTERRUPT)
> [root@localhost ~]# cat /proc/interrupts | grep ecc
> 174: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GICv3 614 Level llcc_ecc
> [root@localhost ~]#
>
> Potentially stupid question, but are users expected to manually load the
> driver as I did? I don't see how it would be loaded automatically in the
> current state, but thought it was funny that I needed to modprobe
> myself.
>
> Please let me know if you want me to do any more further testing!
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>

--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்