[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZR6Pjk_3gpx1K3pF@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 11:27:26 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
D Scott Phillips <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Misono Tomohiro <misono.tomohiro@...itsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: smp: Fix pseudo NMI issues w/ broken Mediatek
FW
On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 07:04:12AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 3:15 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2023 10:59:50 +0100,
> > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Given you haven't seen any issues, I suspect those are getting reset to fixed
> > > values that happens to work out for us, but it is a bit worrisome more
> > > generally (e.g. the LPI case above).
> >
> > It is likely that these SoCs don't even have an ITS.
>
> Right. That was what we decided [1] when Marc pointed this out earlier.
>
> Overall: we know that this firmware behavior is not good but we're
> stuck with it. :( At the very least, any new devices coming out will
> have this fixed. Presumably if old devices are working OK enough today
> (as long as you don't enable pseudo-NMI) then they can be made to keep
> working?
>
> So circling back: what patch should we actually land?
For now I'd prefer we took the patch I sent in:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/ZRr8r7XMoyDKaitd@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com/
... as that leaves us no worse than before this series, and it's pretty simple.
> As of right now only pseudo-NMI is broken, but it would be good to make sure
> that if the kernel later adds other features that would be broken on this
> hardware that it gets handled properly...
Going further than the above, I think there are three options here:
1) Complete fix: depend on a working firmware, and throw this workaround away.
IIUC from the above, that's not something you can commit to.
2) Partial fix: have the kernel save/restore everything.
IIUC this is unpalatable.
3) Partial fix: make the ARM64_HAS_GIC_PRIO_MASKING cpucap depend on the
absence of a "mediatek,broken-save-restore-fw" property in the DT. I believe
we can check that in early_enable_pseudo_nmi() or can_use_gic_priorities().
That'll avoid potential issues if/when we change the priorities used for
pNMI (which is something I've been looking at).
I'm happy with (3) if Marc is.
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists