lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/8] x86, microcode, intel: add error logging to early update driver
    On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:37:50PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
    > Enhance the logging in the Intel early microcode update driver to
    > be able to report errors.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
    > ---
    > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c | 94 +++++++++++++++------------
    > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c
    > index f73fc0a..8ad50d6 100644
    > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c
    > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c
    > @@ -31,6 +31,12 @@
    > #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
    > #include <asm/setup.h>
    >
    > +enum {
    > + INTEL_EARLYMCU_NONE = 0, /* did nothing */
    > + INTEL_EARLYMCU_UPDATEOK, /* microcode updated */
    > + INTEL_EARLYMCU_REJECTED, /* cpu rejected it */
    > +};
    > +
    > static unsigned long mc_saved_in_initrd[MAX_UCODE_COUNT];
    > static struct mc_saved_data {
    > unsigned int mc_saved_count;
    > @@ -576,37 +582,50 @@ scan_microcode(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
    >
    > /*
    > * Print ucode update info.
    > + * for status == INTEL_EARLYMCU_UPDATEOK, data should be the mcu date
    > + * for status == INTEL_EARLYMCU_REJECTED, data should be mcu revision
    > */
    > -static void
    > -print_ucode_info(struct ucode_cpu_info *uci, unsigned int date)
    > +static void print_ucode_info(const unsigned int status,
    > + const struct ucode_cpu_info *uci,
    > + const unsigned int data)
    > {
    > int cpu = smp_processor_id();
    > -
    > - pr_info("CPU%d: entire core updated early to revision 0x%x, date %04x-%02x-%02x\n",
    > - cpu,
    > - uci->cpu_sig.rev,
    > - date & 0xffff,
    > - date >> 24,
    > - (date >> 16) & 0xff);
    > + struct ucode_cpu_info ucil;
    > +
    > + switch (status) {
    > + case INTEL_EARLYMCU_NONE:
    > + break;
    > + case INTEL_EARLYMCU_UPDATEOK:
    > + if (!uci) {
    > + collect_cpu_info_early(&ucil);
    > + uci = &ucil;
    > + }
    > + pr_info("CPU%d: entire core updated early to revision 0x%x, date %04x-%02x-%02x\n",
    > + cpu,
    > + uci->cpu_sig.rev,
    > + data & 0xffff,
    > + data >> 24,
    > + (data >> 16) & 0xff);
    > + break;
    > + case INTEL_EARLYMCU_REJECTED:
    > + pr_err("CPU%d: update to revision 0x%x rejected by the processor\n", cpu, data);
    > + break;
    > + }
    > }
    >
    > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
    >
    > -static int delay_ucode_info;
    > -static int current_mc_date;
    > +static unsigned int delay_ucode_info;
    > +static unsigned int delay_ucode_info_data;

    First of all, this really is date and not data and prefixing it with
    "delay" really doesn't make it cleaner.

    Then, this whole scheme can be simplified a bit by dropping
    delay_ucode_info and using current_mc_date to test whether to print the
    message or not. After printing, you set it back to 0.

    And then you can drop the _REJECTED case as it is not needed.

    --
    Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

    Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
    --


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-10-20 17:41    [W:3.439 / U:0.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site