> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 5:52 AM
> To: Jia Hongtao-B38951
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ga...@kernel.crashing.org; Wood Scott-
> B07421; Li Yang-R58472; Jia Hongtao-B38951
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] powerpc/85xx: Add machine check handler to fix
> PCIe erratum on mpc85xx
>
> On 04/08/2013 03:26:54 AM, Jia Hongtao wrote:
> > @@ -826,6 +829,124 @@ u64 fsl_pci_immrbar_base(struct pci_controller
> > *hose)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_E500
> > +
> > +#define OP_LWZ 32
> > +#define OP_LWZU 33
> > +#define OP_LBZ 34
> > +#define OP_LBZU 35
> > +#define OP_LHZ 40
> > +#define OP_LHZU 41
> > +#define OP_LHA 42
> > +#define OP_LHAU 43
>
> Can you move these to asm/ppc-opcode.h (or possibly
> asm/ppc-disassemble.h if we don't want to mix the two methods of
> describing instructions)?
Yes, mix the two methods is not appropriate.
asm/ppc-disassemble.h is a nice choice.
>
> > +static int mcheck_handle_load(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 inst)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int rd, ra, d;
> > +
> > + rd = get_rt(inst);
> > + ra = get_ra(inst);
> > + d = get_d(inst);
> > +
> > + switch (get_op(inst)) {
> > + case OP_LWZ:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xffffffff;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OP_LWZU:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xffffffff;
> > + regs->gpr[ra] += (s16)d;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OP_LBZ:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xff;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OP_LBZU:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xff;
> > + regs->gpr[ra] += (s16)d;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OP_LHZ:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xffff;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OP_LHZU:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xffff;
> > + regs->gpr[ra] += (s16)d;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OP_LHA:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xffff;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case OP_LHAU:
> > + regs->gpr[rd] = 0xffff;
> > + regs->gpr[ra] += (s16)d;
> > + break;
>
> The X and (especially for PCI) BRX versions are important -- probably
> more so than the U versions. I doubt we need the A variant.
Then I will add X and BRX variant and remove A variant.
>
> If you do support the A variant, why are you not sign-extending the
> value?
Just curious, sign-extending the value means fill rd with 0xffffffff?
>
> Is this erratum present on any 64-bit chips?
No. This erratum only happened in e500 core chips.
>
> -Scott
Thanks.
-Hongtao
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
