On 04/16/2013 01:18 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:15:47PM -0500, Aravind wrote:
This one case in point, please redo it against tip/master.
I had based off bp.git's master... and it misses an additional
'PCI_DEVICE' line (Hence the conflict)
I shall redo it against Linus's tree..
No, against tip/master, please.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git, the master branch.
Okay.
@@ -133,6 +134,15 @@ static int f15_read_dct_pci_cfg(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, int
addr, u32 *val,
return __amd64_read_pci_cfg_dword(pvt->F2, addr, val, func);
}
+static int f16_read_dct_pci_cfg(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, int addr, u32 *val,
+ const char *func)
+{
+ if (addr >= 0x100)
+ return -EINVAL;
I'm very sceptical F16h doesn't have F2 extended PCI config addresses.
Please check the BKDG.
If it does have, use f10_read_dct_pci_cfg, if it doesn't, use
k8_read_dct_pci_cfg without introducing a new accessor while the other
ones can be used.
Whichever one you take, please add a comment somewhere explaining why it
is ok to use it on F16h.
Here, What I really wanted to do was to restrict the access to
only 1 DCT (as fam16 does not have a DCT1 and hence not allow any
addr > =0x100).
What are you talking about?
I'm sure it has, say, D18F2x110 DRAM Controller Select Low, for example.
And this address is > 0x100.
So for F16h you can simply take the F10h methods and ignore DctCfgSel
because it always will be 0.
Wrong assumption on my part here. (Apologies)
Yes, for this I can modify the code to just use f10_read_dct_pci_cfg
or k8_read_dct_pci_cfg.
Yes, please do that.
+ u64 base_bits_low, base_bits_high;
+ u64 mask_bits_low, mask_bits_high;
+ u8 addr_shift_low, addr_shift_high;
+
+ csbase = pvt->csels[dct].csbases[csrow];
+ csmask = pvt->csels[dct].csmasks[csrow >> 1];
+ base_bits_low = mask_bits_low = GENMASK(5 , 15);
+ base_bits_high = mask_bits_high = GENMASK(19 , 30);
+ addr_shift_low = 6;
+ addr_shift_high = 8;
Hold on, are you saying "D18F2x[5C:40]_dct[1:0] DRAM CS Base Address"
register definitions in the F16h BKDG has this:
30:19 -> BaseAddr[38:27]: normalized physical base address bits [38:27]
and
15:5 -> BaseAddr[21:11]: normalized physical base address bits [21:11]
?
Please verify with BKDG authors whether those numbers are correct
because the diff of 8 address bits has always been this up until now.
That is correct. (I have verified it internally too..)
Ok, then do the following:
Read the low bits, shift them by 2 so that they're at the right position
to be shifted by 8 like the high bits:
*base = (csbase & GENMASK(5, 15)) << 2;
*mask = (csmask & GENMASK(5, 15)) << 2;
*base |= (csbase & GENMASK(19, 30)) << 8;
*mask |= (csmask & GENMASK(19, 30)) << 8;
return;
AFAICT, this looks much simpler. Also, add a small comment why the
special handling for F16h.
I have reworked this code in an attempt to make it simpler..
Here is how I did it:
(for base)
+ *base = (csbase & GENMASK(5 , 15)) << 6;
+ *base |= (csbase & GENMASK(19 , 30)) << 8;
(for mask)
+ *mask = ~0ULL;
+ /* holes for the csmask */
+ *mask &= ~((GENMASK(19 , 30) << 8) |
+ (GENMASK(5 , 15) << 6));
+ *mask |= (csmask & GENMASK(5 , 15)) << 6;
+ *mask |= (csmask & GENMASK(19 , 30)) << 8;
I have added some comment around the code to clarify the operation to be
performed..
Since I have directly GENMASK'd it, we can get rid of the local variables
I was using before...
Do let me know if this is acceptable..
Thanks.
Sending it out as V4 of the patch..
Thanks,
-Aravind.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
