From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>,
SuraveeSuthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AMD/iommu: SR56x0 Erratum 64 - Reset Command and Event head & tail pointers
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 17:36:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <519BA283.2070207@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <519BAB7E02000078000D7D5B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On 21/05/13 16:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.05.13 at 16:52, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Reference at time of patch:
>> http://support.amd.com/us/ChipsetMotherboard_TechDocs/46303.pdf
>>
>> Erratum 64 states that the head and tail pointers for the Command buffer and
>> Event log are only reset on a cold boot, not a warm boot.
>>
>> While the erratum is limited to systems using SR56xx chipsets (such as
>> Family
>> 10h CPUs), resetting the pointers is a sensible action in all cases.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> You sent this twice in close succession - is there any difference
> between the two instances?
No - I tried sending it once, got an error from the SMTP server, tried
again 20 mins later and both got forwarded at that point.
>
>> The code appears to lack an MMIO 64bit write function which would be the
>> correct solution here. However, for these four registers, bit 19 is the
>> highest non-reserved bit, meaning that the writel() will do the correct
>> thing.
>>
>> I suspect that a writeq() function would make a huge difference to the
>> legibility and brevity of this code.
> Oh, we should of course have a writeq() - I think I stumbled across
> the lack thereof too, and probably more than once.
At the moment, writel() is using a voiltile int * cast. Given that the
b,w,l and q suffixes have specific widths implied, would it be better to
use explicit uintX_t casts?
>
>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_init.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_init.c
>> @@ -154,6 +154,15 @@ static void register_iommu_cmd_buffer_in
>> IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_LENGTH_MASK,
>> IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_LENGTH_SHIFT, &entry);
>> writel(entry, iommu->mmio_base+IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_BASE_HIGH_OFFSET);
>> +
>> + /* AMD SR56x0 Erratum 64. CMD buffer head and tail pointers are not reset
>> + * on warm boot. A newer BIOS may or may not do this for us, as per the
>> + * workaround advise.
>> + *
>> + * However, it is a safe and sensible action to perform unconditionally.
>> + */
>> + writel(0, iommu->mmio_base + IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_HEAD_OFFSET);
>> + writel(0, iommu->mmio_base + IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_TAIL_OFFSET);
>> }
>>
>> static void register_iommu_event_log_in_mmio_space(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
>> @@ -182,6 +191,15 @@ static void register_iommu_event_log_in_
>> IOMMU_EVENT_LOG_LENGTH_MASK,
>> IOMMU_EVENT_LOG_LENGTH_SHIFT, &entry);
>> writel(entry, iommu->mmio_base+IOMMU_EVENT_LOG_BASE_HIGH_OFFSET);
>> +
>> + /* AMD SR56x0 Erratum 64. Event log head and tail pointers are not reset
>> + * on warm boot. A newer BIOS may or may not do this for us, as per the
>> + * workaround advise.
>> + *
>> + * However, it is a safe and sensible action to perform unconditionally.
>> + */
>> + writel(0, iommu->mmio_base + IOMMU_EVENT_LOG_HEAD_OFFSET);
>> + writel(0, iommu->mmio_base + IOMMU_EVENT_LOG_TAIL_OFFSET);
>> }
>>
>> static void register_iommu_ppr_log_in_mmio_space(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
> If "it is a safe and sensible action to perform unconditionally", why
> don't you then also do the same for the PPR log?
>
> Jan
>
Because those were the only entries referenced by the erratum, and I am
still learning the AMD IOMMU architecture. I shall extend this to
include the PPR log.
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-21 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-21 14:52 [PATCH] AMD/iommu: SR56x0 Erratum 64 - Reset Command and Event head & tail pointers Andrew Cooper
2013-05-21 15:14 ` Jan Beulich
2013-05-21 16:36 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2013-05-22 7:03 ` Jan Beulich
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-05-21 14:36 Andrew Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=519BA283.2070207@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jacob.shin@amd.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).