Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [PATCH 3/4][v2] fsl_rio: move machine_check handler into machine_check_e500 & machine_check_e500mc | Date | Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:19:04 +0800 | From | Xie Shaohui-B21989 <> |
| |
Best Regards, Shaohui Xie
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bounine, Alexandre [mailto:Alexandre.Bounine@idt.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:55 AM > To: Xie Shaohui-B21989; akpm@linux-foundation.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Li Yang- > R58472; Gala Kumar-B11780; Zang Roy-R61911 > Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/4][v2] fsl_rio: move machine_check handler into > machine_check_e500 & machine_check_e500mc > > Shaohui Xie <b21989@freescale.com> wrote: > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c > > index a45a63c..2a5fb9d 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c > > @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ > > #endif > > #include <asm/kexec.h> > > #include <asm/ppc-opcode.h> > > +#include <linux/rio.h> > > > > #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUGGER) || defined(CONFIG_KEXEC) int > > (*__debugger)(struct pt_regs *regs) __read_mostly; @@ -500,6 +501,13 > > @@ int machine_check_e500mc(struct pt_regs *regs) > > reason & MCSR_MEA ? "Effective" : "Physical", > addr); > > } > > > > + if (reason & MCSR_BUS_RBERR) { > > + printk("Bus - Read Data Bus Error\n"); #ifdef CONFIG_RAPIDIO > > + recoverable = fsl_rio_mcheck_exception(regs); #endif > > + } > > + > > mtspr(SPRN_MCSR, mcsr); > > return mfspr(SPRN_MCSR) == 0 && recoverable; } @@ -527,8 +535,12 > @@ > > int machine_check_e500(struct pt_regs *regs) > > printk("Bus - Write Address Error\n"); > > if (reason & MCSR_BUS_IBERR) > > printk("Bus - Instruction Data Error\n"); > > - if (reason & MCSR_BUS_RBERR) > > + if (reason & MCSR_BUS_RBERR) { > > printk("Bus - Read Data Bus Error\n"); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RAPIDIO > > + fsl_rio_mcheck_exception(regs); > > +#endif > > + } > > if (reason & MCSR_BUS_WBERR) > > printk("Bus - Read Data Bus Error\n"); > > if (reason & MCSR_BUS_IPERR) > > This implementation breaks an intended use of > fsl_rio_mcheck_exception(): > 1. for e500 it does not check the return value of the rio handler and > crashes the system even after RIO Mchk was serviced. Looks like e500mc > version handles it better but I have no HW to test it. > 2. the RIO Mchk is expected to be handled quietly but here it has many > printk's. May be it is better to call the fsl_rio_mcheck_exception() > handler in very beginning and simply exit if it returns 1. > > Alex. [Xie Shaohui-B21989] Hi Alex, seems your suggestion is some kind of conflict with Kumar, you can have a look at http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/67774/
Thanks Shaohui
> >
| |