Re: [PATCH 2/2] MIPS: Ingenic: Disable abandoned HPTLB function.

[Paul Cercueil]

Hi Zhou,


Le sam., nov. 16, 2019 at 18:11, Zhou Yanjie <zhouyanjie@xxxxxxxx> a 
Ãcrit :
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 2019å11æ16æ 05:37, Paul Burton wrote:
> > Hi Zhou,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 05:29:01PM +0800, Zhou Yanjie wrote:
> > > JZ4760/JZ4770/JZ4775/X1000/X1500 has an abandoned huge page
> > > tlb, write 0xa9000000 to cp0 config5 sel4 to disable this
> > > function to prevent getting stuck.
> > Can you describe how we "get stuck"?
>
> When the kernel is started, it will be stuck in the "Run /init as 
> init process"
> according to the log information. After using the debug probe, it is 
> found
> that tlbmiss occurred when the run init was started, and entered the 
> infinite
> loop in the "tlb-funcs.S".
>
> > What actually goes wrong on the
> > affected CPUs? Do they misinterpret EntryLo values? Which bits do 
> > they
> > misinterpret?
>
> According to Ingenic's explanation, this is because the 
> JZ4760/JZ4770/JZ4775/X1000
> use the same core (both belong to PRID_COMP_INGENIC_D1). This core is 
> not fully
> implemented in VTLB at design time, but only implements the 4K page 
> mode.

Actually hugepages work fine on all Ingenic SoCs I tested with, from 
JZ4740 upwards, with the VTLB, so this is incorrect.


> Support for larger pages was implemented by a component called HPTLB 
> that
> they designed themselves, but this component was later discarded, so 
> write
> 0xa9000000 to cp0 register5 sel4 to turn off HPTLB mode and return to 
> VTLB
> mode. The actual test also shows that the kernel will no longer be 
> stuck in
> the "Run / init as init process" after shutting down the HPTLB mode, 
> and can
> boot to the shell normally.

That's good info, please consider adding that in the comment and in the 
commit message, and maybe also change the last sentence to reflect 
what's actually going on with the infinite loop after the tlbmiss.

Cheers,
-Paul


> > > Confirmed by Ingenic,
> > > this operation will not adversely affect processors
> > > without HPTLB function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhou Yanjie <zhouyanjie@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c 
> > > b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> > > index 16033a4..cfebf8c 100644
> > > --- a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> > > +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> > > @@ -1966,11 +1966,23 @@ static inline void cpu_probe_ingenic(struct 
> > > cpuinfo_mips *c, unsigned int cpu)
> > >   	}
> > >     	/*
> > > -	 * The config0 register in the Xburst CPUs with a processor ID of
> > > +	 * The config0 register in the XBurst CPUs with a processor ID of
> > > +	 * PRID_COMP_INGENIC_D1 has an abandoned huge page tlb, write
> > > +	 * 0xa9000000 to cp0 config5 sel4 to disable this function to
> > Saying "config5" suggests $16 sel 5 to me - Config5 is after all an
> > architecturally defined register & it's not this one. It'd be better 
> > to
> > say "cop0 register 5 sel 4".
>
> Sure, I'll change it in v2.
>
> > > +	 * prevent getting stuck.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if ((c->processor_id & PRID_COMP_MASK) == PRID_COMP_INGENIC_D1) {
> > > +		__asm__ (
> > > +			"li    $2, 0xa9000000 \n\t"
> > > +			"mtc0  $2, $5, 4      \n\t"
> > > +			"nop                  \n\t"
> > > +			::"r"(2));
> > I'd prefer that you add #defines to asm/mipsregs.h to provide a
> > write_c0_X() function where X is replaced with whatever the name of 
> > this
> > register is, and preferably also #define macros describing the fields
> > present in the register. Writing a magic number isn't ideal.
>
> Sure, I'll change it in v2.
>
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The config0 register in the XBurst CPUs with a processor ID of
> > >   	 * PRID_COMP_INGENIC_D0 report themselves as MIPS32r2 compatible,
> > >   	 * but they don't actually support this ISA.
> > >   	 */
> > > -	if ((c->processor_id & PRID_COMP_MASK) == PRID_COMP_INGENIC_D0)
> > > +	} else if ((c->processor_id & PRID_COMP_MASK) == 
> > > PRID_COMP_INGENIC_D0)
> > It might be cleaner to use a switch statement rather than writing out
> > the & PRID_COMP_MASK condition twice?
>
> Sure, I'll change it in v2.
>
> Thanks and best regards!
>
> > Thanks,
> >      Paul