lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A53 and A57
Date
On 03/15/2018 08:07 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi York,
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:17:46PM -0700, York Sun wrote:
>> Add error detection for A53 and A57 cores. Hardware error injection
>> is supported on A53. Software error injection is supported on both.
>> For hardware error injection on A53 to work, proper access to
>> L2ACTLR_EL1, CPUACTLR_EL1 needs to be granted by EL3 firmware. This
>> is done by making an SMC call in the driver. Failure to enable access
>> disables hardware error injection. For error interrupt to work,
>> another SMC call enables access to L2ECTLR_EL1. Failure to enable
>> access disables interrupt for error reporting.
>
> Further to James's comments, I'm very wary of the prospect of using
> IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED functionality in the kernel, since by definition
> this varies from CPU to CPU, and we have no architected guarantees to
> rely upon.
>
> I'm concerned that allowing the Non-secure world to access these
> IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED registers poses a security risk (as it allows the
> Non-secure world to change properties that the secure world may be
> relying upon, among other things).
>
> I'm also concerned by the SMC interface, which uses a SIP-specific ID
> (i.e. it's NXP-specific). Thus, this driver can only possibly work on
> particular CPUs as integrated by NXP.
>
> The general expectation is that IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED functionality is
> for the use of firmware, which can provide common abstract interfaces.
>
> From ARMv8.2 onwards, EDAC functionality is architected as part of the
> RAS extensions, and in future, that's what I'd expect we'd support in
> the kernel.
>
> Given all that, I don't think that we should be poking this
> functionality directly within Linux, and I think that firmware should be
> in charge of managing EDAC errors on these systems.
>
> I've left some general comments below, but the above stands regardless.
>

Points taken. I only made this driver under our customer's request.
Even this may meet our customer's need in short term, it doesn't look
like a generic solution for the architecture. Let's stop here.

I really appreciate your other comments in this thread.

York

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-15 16:16    [W:0.150 / U:1.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site