Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] powerpc/dt_cpu_ftrs: Add feature for 2nd DAWR

Ravi Bangoria
2020-07-21T13:44:26Z

On 7/21/20 4:59 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> On 7/17/20 11:14 AM, Jordan Niethe wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Ravi Bangoria
>>> <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add new device-tree feature for 2nd DAWR. If this feature is present,
>>>> 2nd DAWR is supported, otherwise not.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h | 7 +++++--
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/dt_cpu_ftrs.c | 7 +++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>> index e506d429b1af..3445c86e1f6f 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>> #define CPU_FTR_P9_TLBIE_ERAT_BUG LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0001000000000000)
>>>> #define CPU_FTR_P9_RADIX_PREFETCH_BUG LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0002000000000000)
>>>> #define CPU_FTR_ARCH_31 LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0004000000000000)
>>>> +#define CPU_FTR_DAWR1 LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0008000000000000)
>>>>
>>>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>>
>>>> @@ -497,14 +498,16 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>> #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE \
>>>> (CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | \
>>>> CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>> - CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>> + CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>> + CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>>>> #else
>>>> #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE \
>>>> (CPU_FTRS_PPC970 | CPU_FTRS_POWER5 | \
>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER6 | CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | \
>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | CPU_FTRS_CELL | CPU_FTRS_PA6T | \
>>>> CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>> - CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>> + CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>> + CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>
>>> Instead of putting CPU_FTR_DAWR1 into CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE should it go
>>> into CPU_FTRS_POWER10?
>>> Then it will be picked up by CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE.
>>
>> I remember a discussion about this with Mikey and we decided to do it
>> this way. Obviously, the purpose is to make CPU_FTR_DAWR1 independent of
>> CPU_FTRS_POWER10 because DAWR1 is an optional feature in p10. I fear
>> including CPU_FTR_DAWR1 in CPU_FTRS_POWER10 can make it forcefully enabled
>> even when device-tree property is not present or pa-feature bit it not set,
>> because we do:
>>
>> { /* 3.1-compliant processor, i.e. Power10 "architected" mode */
>> .pvr_mask = 0xffffffff,
>> .pvr_value = 0x0f000006,
>> .cpu_name = "POWER10 (architected)",
>> .cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_POWER10,
>
> The pa-features logic will turn it off if the feature bit is not set.
>
> So you should be able to put it in CPU_FTRS_POWER10.
>
> See for example CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE.

Ah ok. scan_features() clears the feature if the bit is not set in
pa-features. So it should work find for powervm. I'll verify the same
thing happens in case of baremetal where we use cpu-features not
pa-features. If it works in baremetal as well, will put it in
CPU_FTRS_POWER10.

Thanks for the clarification,
Ravi