On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:51:32AM +0300, sonofa...@openmailbox.org wrote: > Thank you for your time! I have chosen reply to list and all recipients, it > must work now.
Yes, exactly what I had in mind. > My brother rejected the proposed patch because it does not provide > equivalent functionality with the original. > > Our initial patch would fix 3 broken models and 1 working model. Your patch > will only work for 1 model. Only machines having our APU will be fixed. All > B0 APUs will be unpatched. This is not right. Check the revision guide to > verify that. Right you are: I read too much into the description of bit 2 of D18F4x164. Of course we want to apply that fix to to ON-Bs too. > To avoid unneeded complexity we propose this patch as V2, do you agree? > > +#define MSR_AMD64_IC_CFG 0xC0011021 > + > +static void init_amd_on(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > +{ > + /* > + * Apply erratum 688 fix so machines without a BIOS > + * fix work. > + */ > + > + u32 val = pci_read_config(0, 0x18, 0x4, 0x164); > + > + if (!(val & BIT(2))) { > + msr_set_bit(MSR_AMD64_IC_CFG, 3); > + msr_set_bit(MSR_AMD64_IC_CFG, 14); Yes, that should work fine. Btw, there's missing a closing } for the if-test here. > +} > static void init_amd_bd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > { > u64 value; > @@ -738,6 +750,7 @@ static void init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 > case 0xf: init_amd_k8(c); break; > case 0x10: init_amd_gh(c); break; > case 0x12: init_amd_ln(c); break; > + case 0x14: init_amd_on(c); break; > case 0x15: init_amd_bd(c); break; > } > > Please advice to proceed! Right, please send a tested version of the above with the explanation text from your initial submission. Thanks. > erratum 721 :-( Hmm, interesting. Do you have a way to trigger that one? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.