Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] soc: amazon: al-pos: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna Labs POS driver
From: Shenhar, Talel
Date: Thu Sep 12 2019 - 02:50:35 EST
On 9/11/2019 5:15 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:05:09 +0100,
Talel Shenhar <talel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ log1 = readl(pos->mmio_base + AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1);
Do you actually need the implied barriers? I'd expect that relaxed
accesses should be enough.
You are correct. Barriers are not needed, In v1 this driver indeed used
Due to request coming from Arnd in v1 patch series I removed it. As this
is not data path I had no strong objection for removing it.
+ if (!FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_VALID, log1))
What is this information? How do we make use of it? Given that this is
+ return IRQ_NONE;
+ log0 = readl(pos->mmio_base + AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_0);
+ writel(0, pos->mmio_base + AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1);
+ addr = FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_0_ADDR_LOW, log0);
+ addr |= (FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_ADDR_HIGH, log1) << 32);
+ request_id = FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_REQUEST_ID, log1);
+ bresp = FIELD_GET(AL_POS_ERROR_LOG_1_BRESP, log1);
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "addr=0x%llx request_id=0x%x bresp=0x%x\n",
+ addr, request_id, bresp);
asynchronous, how do we correlate it to the offending software?
Indeed this information arriving from the HW is asynchronous.
There is no direct method to get the offending software.
There are all kinds of hacks we do to find the offending software once
we find this error. most of the time its a new patch introduced but some
of the time is just digging.
The whole think looks to me like a poor man's EDAC handling, and I'd
expect to be plugged in that subsystem instead. Any reason why this
isn't the case? It would certainly make the handling uniform for the
This logic was not plugged into EDAC as there is no "Correctable" error
here. its just error event. Not all errors are EDAC in the sense of
Error Detection And *Correction*. There are no correctable errors for
So plugging itÂ under EDAC seems like abusing the EDAC system.
Now that I've emphasize the reason for not putting this under EDAC, what
do you think? should this "only uncorrectable event" driver should be
part of EDAC?