[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190213131906.GB5875@brain-police>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:19:06 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: "Zhang, Lei" <zhang.lei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: 'Mark Rutland' <mark.rutland@....com>,
'Catalin Marinas' <catalin.marinas@....com>,
'James Morse' <james.morse@....com>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX erratum
010001
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:32:07PM +0000, Zhang, Lei wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-arm-kernel
> > [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-bounces@...ts.infradead.org] On Behalf Of
> > Will Deacon
> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 7:52 PM
> > To: Zhang, Lei
> > Cc: 'Mark Rutland'; 'Catalin Marinas'; 'James Morse';
> > 'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org';
> > 'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX
> > erratum 010001
>
> > So I guess we should boot with NFD1 clear, and then set it only when we
> > realise we're not on an A64FX?
>
> In my patch, I do similar things at __cpu_setup which we
> set NFD1=1 on all processors except A64FX.
>
> Do you mean we would better to change the place where we
> set/clear NFD1?
Yes, I think we should keep the code as simple as we can:
- Don't set NFDx=1 in proc.S for any CPU
- Later, in C code, we can set the bit for any CPU that is not an affected
A64FX (this can be a simple MIDR check).
Does that work?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists