Thread (28 messages) flat view 28 messages, 3 authors, 2020-07-21

Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] powerpc/dt_cpu_ftrs: Add feature for 2nd DAWR

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Date: 2020-07-21 11:29:29
Also in: lkml

Ravi Bangoria [off-list ref] writes:
On 7/17/20 11:14 AM, Jordan Niethe wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Ravi Bangoria
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Add new device-tree feature for 2nd DAWR. If this feature is present,
2nd DAWR is supported, otherwise not.

Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <redacted>
---
  arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h | 7 +++++--
  arch/powerpc/kernel/dt_cpu_ftrs.c   | 7 +++++++
  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
index e506d429b1af..3445c86e1f6f 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
@@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
  #define CPU_FTR_P9_TLBIE_ERAT_BUG      LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0001000000000000)
  #define CPU_FTR_P9_RADIX_PREFETCH_BUG  LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0002000000000000)
  #define CPU_FTR_ARCH_31                        LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0004000000000000)
+#define CPU_FTR_DAWR1                  LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0008000000000000)

  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
@@ -497,14 +498,16 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
  #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE      \
             (CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | \
              CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
-            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
+            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
+            CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
  #else
  #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE      \
             (CPU_FTRS_PPC970 | CPU_FTRS_POWER5 | \
              CPU_FTRS_POWER6 | CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | \
              CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | CPU_FTRS_CELL | CPU_FTRS_PA6T | \
              CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
-            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
+            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
+            CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
quoted
Instead of putting CPU_FTR_DAWR1 into CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE should it go
into CPU_FTRS_POWER10?
Then it will be picked up by CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE.
I remember a discussion about this with Mikey and we decided to do it
this way. Obviously, the purpose is to make CPU_FTR_DAWR1 independent of
CPU_FTRS_POWER10 because DAWR1 is an optional feature in p10. I fear
including CPU_FTR_DAWR1 in CPU_FTRS_POWER10 can make it forcefully enabled
even when device-tree property is not present or pa-feature bit it not set,
because we do:

       {       /* 3.1-compliant processor, i.e. Power10 "architected" mode */
               .pvr_mask               = 0xffffffff,
               .pvr_value              = 0x0f000006,
               .cpu_name               = "POWER10 (architected)",
               .cpu_features           = CPU_FTRS_POWER10,
The pa-features logic will turn it off if the feature bit is not set.

So you should be able to put it in CPU_FTRS_POWER10.

See for example CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE.

cheers
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help