Re: [PATCH 2/3] EDAC, amd64_edac: Extend scrub rate programmability feature for F15hM60h

[Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com>]

On 9/24/2015 4:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:53:30PM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>> -static int __set_scrub_rate(struct pci_dev *ctl, u32 new_bw, u32 min_rate)
>> +static u32 find_scrub_rate(u32 new_bw, u32 min_rate, u32 *scrub_bw)
>>   {
>>   	u32 scrubval;
>>   	int i;
>> @@ -200,28 +200,52 @@ static int __set_scrub_rate(struct pci_dev *ctl, u32 new_bw, u32 min_rate)
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	scrubval = scrubrates[i].scrubval;
>> +	*scrub_bw = scrubval ? scrubrates[i].bandwidth : 0;
>>   
>> -	pci_write_bits32(ctl, SCRCTRL, scrubval, 0x001F);
>> +	return scrubval;
>> +}
>>   
>> -	if (scrubval)
>> -		return scrubrates[i].bandwidth;
>> +static inline void __set_scrub_rate(struct pci_dev *ctl, int offset,
>> +				    u32 scrubval)
>> +{
>> +	pci_write_bits32(ctl, offset, scrubval, SCRMASK);
>>   
>> -	return 0;
>>   }
>>   
> What is all that churn good for?
>
> What's wrong with simply adding the model 0x60 check to
> __set_scrub_rate() and doing the proper write there?

I was thinking it's a little better from readability POV to separate out 
the for loop which does the job of finding the scrub value to program;
And __set_scrub_rate() writes the value to the appropriate register.

Maybe I am making it too modular?

>>   
>> -	amd64_read_pci_cfg(pvt->F3, SCRCTRL, &scrubval);
>> +	if (pvt->fam == 0x15 && pvt->model == 0x60) {
>> +		/* Since we mirror the same scrubrate value across
>> +		 * both DCTs, it is enough to read the value off one of
>> +		 * the DCT registers.
>> +		 */
>> +		f15h_select_dct(pvt, 0);
> If it is enough, why do you select DCT 0? Just read the currently
> selected one, whichever it is...

Yeah, that's a good point!
Will fix this.

>>   static int f16_dbam_to_chip_select(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, u8 dct,
>> -				unsigned cs_mode, int cs_mask_nr)
>> +				   unsigned cs_mode, int cs_mask_nr)
>>   {
>>   	WARN_ON(cs_mode > 12);
> Why is that hunk here?
>
>> @@ -1666,7 +1699,7 @@ static int f1x_match_to_this_node(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, unsigned range,
>>   }
>>   
>>   static int f15_m30h_match_to_this_node(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, unsigned range,
>> -					u64 sys_addr, int *chan_sel)
>> +				       u64 sys_addr, int *chan_sel)
>>   {
>>   	int cs_found = -EINVAL;
>>   	int num_dcts_intlv = 0;
> That one too?
>

I realize it's unrelated to the patch and it's not doing something useful;
But I was thinking I'll fix the above indentation issues to keep indent 
rules consistent and since I was touching the file anyway.
Can remove those in a V2..

Thanks,
-Aravind.