[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180217103044.GB25916@pd.tnic>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:30:44 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc: linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/MCE/AMD: Carve out SMCA get_block_address()
code
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 03:09:43PM -0600, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
>
> Carve out the SMCA code in get_block_address() into a separate helper
> function.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> ---
> v1->v2:
> * New in this series.
>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
All look ok to me, this last one I massaged a bit to save an indentation
level, see below.
Running them a bit on the boxes here...
---
From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:09:43 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] x86/MCE/AMD: Carve out SMCA get_block_address() code
Carve out the SMCA code in get_block_address() into a separate helper
function.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180215210943.11530-4-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com
[ Save an indentation level. ]
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
index 12bc2863a4d6..f7666eef4a87 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
@@ -431,6 +431,35 @@ static void deferred_error_interrupt_enable(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
wrmsr(MSR_CU_DEF_ERR, low, high);
}
+static u32 smca_get_block_address(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int bank,
+ unsigned int block)
+{
+ u32 low, high;
+ u32 addr = 0;
+
+ if (smca_get_bank_type(bank) == SMCA_RESERVED)
+ return addr;
+
+ if (!block)
+ return MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_MISC(bank);
+
+ /*
+ * For SMCA enabled processors, BLKPTR field of the first MISC register
+ * (MCx_MISC0) indicates presence of additional MISC regs set (MISC1-4).
+ */
+ if (rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_CONFIG(bank), &low, &high))
+ return addr;
+
+ if (!(low & MCI_CONFIG_MCAX))
+ return addr;
+
+ if (!rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_MISC(bank), &low, &high) &&
+ (low & MASK_BLKPTR_LO))
+ return MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_MISCy(bank, block - 1);
+
+ return addr;
+}
+
static u32 get_block_address(unsigned int cpu, u32 current_addr, u32 low, u32 high,
unsigned int bank, unsigned int block)
{
@@ -451,32 +480,8 @@ static u32 get_block_address(unsigned int cpu, u32 current_addr, u32 low, u32 hi
}
}
- if (mce_flags.smca) {
- if (smca_get_bank_type(bank) == SMCA_RESERVED)
- return addr;
-
- if (!block) {
- addr = MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_MISC(bank);
- } else {
- /*
- * For SMCA enabled processors, BLKPTR field of the
- * first MISC register (MCx_MISC0) indicates presence of
- * additional MISC register set (MISC1-4).
- */
- u32 low, high;
-
- if (rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_CONFIG(bank), &low, &high))
- return addr;
-
- if (!(low & MCI_CONFIG_MCAX))
- return addr;
-
- if (!rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_MISC(bank), &low, &high) &&
- (low & MASK_BLKPTR_LO))
- addr = MSR_AMD64_SMCA_MCx_MISCy(bank, block - 1);
- }
- return addr;
- }
+ if (mce_flags.smca)
+ return smca_get_block_address(cpu, bank, block);
/* Fall back to method we used for older processors: */
switch (block) {
--
2.13.0
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists