From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 4/4] x86/hpet: Don't clear reserved bits in the General Configuration Register
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:02:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5252BED8.7040102@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5252D97A02000078000F946B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On 07/10/13 14:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.10.13 at 15:26, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> It is a violation of the specification.
>>
>> The reserved bits in the General Configuration Register, unlike all other
>> reserved bits I have found in the spec, are specified as 'must never be
>> changed by the OS'.
> Mind pointing out where exactly you found this? I only find the
> usual "should not modify" statements, and it is really unclear
> whether leaving the bits alone is more compatible than clearing
> them (since a bit of unknown function being set may easily mean
> the HPET behaves in a way we don't expect).
>
> Jan
>
Hpet spec 1-0a.pdf Page 12
"General Configuration Register Bit Definitions"
For bits 63:2, (ignoring the spec reserved vs firmware reserved bits),
the requirement states:
"In order to preserve usage of these bits in the future, software should
not modify the value in
these bits until they are defined. This is done by doing a
“read-modify-write” to this
register."
In most cases Xen does correctly perform a read-modify-write, but not on
initialize examination of the hpet where it blindly tries to clear bits
it doesn't understand.
I did find it strange at the difference in the spec; All other reserved
bits I can find are specified as "must write 0".
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-07 14:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-07 13:26 [Patch 0/4] HPET general fixes Andrew Cooper
2013-10-07 13:26 ` [Patch 1/4] x86/hpet: Basic cleanup Andrew Cooper
2013-10-07 13:26 ` [Patch 2/4] x86/hpet: Sanitise HPET ACPI table and warn about multiple tables Andrew Cooper
2013-10-07 13:45 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-07 13:55 ` Andrew Cooper
2013-10-07 14:26 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-07 13:26 ` [Patch 3/4] x86/hpet: Fix ambiguity in broadcast info message Andrew Cooper
2013-10-07 13:48 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-07 13:26 ` [Patch 4/4] x86/hpet: Don't clear reserved bits in the General Configuration Register Andrew Cooper
2013-10-07 13:55 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-07 14:02 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2013-10-07 14:28 ` Jan Beulich
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=5252BED8.7040102@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).