linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] EDAC/amd64: Fix number of DIMMs and Chip Select bases/masks on Family17h

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190613135822.GC11598@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:58:22 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] EDAC/amd64: Fix number of DIMMs and Chip Select
 bases/masks on Family17h

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:45:11PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> 
> ...because AMD Family 17h systems support 2 DIMMs, 4 CS bases, and 2 CS
> masks per channel.
> 
> Fixes: 07ed82ef93d6 ("EDAC, amd64: Add Fam17h debug output")
> Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> index 873437be86d9..9fa2f205f05c 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> @@ -810,7 +810,7 @@ static void debug_display_dimm_sizes_df(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, u8 ctrl)
>  
>  	edac_printk(KERN_DEBUG, EDAC_MC, "UMC%d chip selects:\n", ctrl);
>  
> -	for (dimm = 0; dimm < 4; dimm++) {
> +	for (dimm = 0; dimm < 2; dimm++) {
>  		size0 = 0;
>  		cs0 = dimm * 2;
>  
> @@ -942,6 +942,9 @@ static void prep_chip_selects(struct amd64_pvt *pvt)
>  	} else if (pvt->fam == 0x15 && pvt->model == 0x30) {
>  		pvt->csels[0].b_cnt = pvt->csels[1].b_cnt = 4;
>  		pvt->csels[0].m_cnt = pvt->csels[1].m_cnt = 2;
> +	} else if (pvt->fam >= 0x17) {
> +		pvt->csels[0].b_cnt = pvt->csels[1].b_cnt = 4;
> +		pvt->csels[0].m_cnt = pvt->csels[1].m_cnt = 2;

I guess it is about time that function gets turned into a switch-case so
that the assignment lines do not get duplicated.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.