On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 11:51 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > On 08/08/2019 11:31 AM, Miles Chen wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 11:19 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > >> > >> On 08/07/2019 06:03 AM, Miles Chen wrote: > >>> This change prints the hexadecimal EC value in mem_abort_decode(), > >>> which makes it easier to lookup the corresponding EC in > >>> the ARM Architecture Reference Manual. > >>> > >>> The commit 1f9b8936f36f ("arm64: Decode information from ESR upon mem > >>> faults") prints useful information when memory abort occurs. It would > >>> be easier to lookup "0x25" instead of "DABT" in the document. Then we > >>> can check the corresponding ISS. > >>> > >>> For example: > >>> Current info Document > >>> EC Exception class > >>> "CP15 MCR/MRC" 0x3 "MCR or MRC access to CP15a..." > >>> "ASIMD" 0x7 "Access to SIMD or floating-point..." > >>> "DABT (current EL)" 0x25 "Data Abort taken without..." > >>> ... > >>> > >>> Before: > >>> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 000000000000c000 > >>> Mem abort info: > >>> ESR = 0x96000046 > >>> Exception class = DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits > >>> SET = 0, FnV = 0 > >>> EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 > >>> Data abort info: > >>> ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000046 > >>> CM = 0, WnR = 1 > >>> > >>> After: > >>> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 000000000000c000 > >>> Mem abort info: > >>> ESR = 0x96000046 > >>> EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits > >>> SET = 0, FnV = 0 > >>> EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 > >>> Data abort info: > >>> ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000046 > >>> CM = 0, WnR = 1 > >>> > >>> Change since v1: > >>> print "EC" instead of "Exception class" > >>> print EC in fixwidth > >>> > >>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > >>> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khand...@arm.com> > >>> Cc: James Morse <james.mo...@arm.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Miles Chen <miles.c...@mediatek.com> > >> > >> This version implements the suggestion, hence it should have > >> also contained acked-by tag from Mark from earlier version. > >> > > > > No problem. Sorry for not including the tag. > > I was not sure if I should add the acked-by tag from Mark in patch v2. > > Yeah because V2 has now implemented the suggestion as required for > getting the tag per Mark in V1. >
Understood. thanks for the explanation > > > >> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khand...@arm.com> > > > > If I send patch v3, I should include acked-by tag from Mark and > > Reviewed-by tag from you, right? > > Right.