[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56FB75BF.2000401@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:44:15 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: arm64: kernel v4.6-rc1 hangs on QEMU
On 2016/3/30 6:52, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:32:42AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 30 March 2016 01:22:17 Yury Norov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Undefined instruction in cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu() could be related
>>>> to the SYS_ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1 access that was recently added.
>>>>
please use new qemu with
commit e20d84c1407d43d5a2e2ac95dbb46db3b0af8f9f
Author: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Date: Fri Feb 19 14:07:43 2016 +0000
target-arm: Make reserved ranges in ID_AA64* spaces RAZ, not UNDEF
The v8 ARM ARM defines that unused spaces in the ID_AA64* system
register ranges are Reserved and must RAZ, rather than being UNDEF.
Implement this.
In particular, ARM v8.2 adds a new feature register ID_AA64MMFR2,
and newer versions of the Linux kernel will attempt to read this,
which causes them not to boot up on versions of QEMU missing this fix.
Since the encoding .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 0, .crn = 0, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 6
is actually defined in ARMv8 (as ID_MMFR4), we give it an entry in
the ARMCPU struct so CPUs can override it, though since none do
this too will just RAZ.
see https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-02/msg04574.html
>>>> What does the architecture say about reading unknown cpuid registers?
>>>>
>>>> Arnd
>>>
>>> ThunderX has some unimplemented system registers. AFAIR, attempt to access it
>>> causes data abort.
>>
>> Ok, if that is the case, maybe the read_cpuid() macro can be changed
>> so it contains a fixup for the trap? That should handle both data abort
>> and undefinstr.
>>
>> Arnd
>
> Sounds alluring, but not clear what we'd return that way. I mean, how
> we'd distinguish between correct value and error code (0, -1 or whatever).
> But I think, we can do like this:
>
> val = read_cpuid_safe(reg, impossible_val);
> if (val == impossible_val)
> goto err;
>
> I think it will work for many cases.
>
> Yury.
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists