[coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-02 Thread Josef Kellermann
This patch fixes a potential system hang. Don't know why this patch isn't included if 'CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1'. Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann Index: src/cpu/amd/model_fxx/model_fxx_init.c =

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-02 Thread Alex G.
Erratum 89 is already handled on line 390: if (!is_cpu_pre_b3()) { /* Erratum 89 ... */ msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR); msr.lo |= 1 << 3; If this is also needed when CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1, then we should move the existing one out of the #if CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 0 so it gets exe

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-02 Thread Josef Kellermann
Am 02.02.2011 20:11, schrieb Alex G.: Erratum 89 is already handled on line 390: if (!is_cpu_pre_b3()) { /* Erratum 89 ... */ msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR); msr.lo |= 1<< 3; If this is also needed when CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1, then we should move the existing one out of the #if

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-02 Thread Rudolf Marek
While we are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;) which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time please try to check if it is correct. Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek Thanks, Rudolf Index: src/cpu/amd/model_fxx/model_fxx_init.c ==

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-02 Thread Alex G.
That looks way better. :) Acked-by: Alexandru Gagniuc On 02/02/2011 10:17 PM, Josef Kellermann wrote: > Am 02.02.2011 20:11, schrieb Alex G.: >> Erratum 89 is already handled on line 390: >> >> if (!is_cpu_pre_b3()) { >> >> /* Erratum 89 ... */ >> msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR); >> msr.lo |

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-02 Thread Alex G.
src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/coherent_ht_car.c was renamed to someting else since then (I wasn't around then), and the patch can no longer be applied. Can you please check this? Alex On 02/02/2011 11:20 PM, Rudolf Marek wrote: > While we are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;) > whic

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-03 Thread Josef Kellermann
Am 02.02.2011 22:20, schrieb Rudolf Marek: While we are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;) which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time please try to check if it is correct. Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek Thanks, Rudolf Hi, are you sure ? -#if K8_REV_F_S

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-03 Thread Alex G.
On 02/03/2011 10:17 AM, Josef Kellermann wrote: >> e are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;) >> which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time >> please try to check if it is correct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek >> >> >> Thanks, >> Rudolf >> > Hi, > are you

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-03 Thread Josef Kellermann
Am 03.02.2011 10:14, schrieb Alex G.: On 02/03/2011 10:17 AM, Josef Kellermann wrote: e are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;) which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time please try to check if it is correct. Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek Thanks, Rudolf H

Re: [coreboot] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

2011-02-03 Thread Alex G.
> Hi, > sorry for the misunderstanding. > Setting bit 32 in msr should be -> 'msr.hi |= (1<< 0)', no? LOL! Nice catch. This is what happens when you're still up at 6AM, obsessive drawing lines on a Google Earth printscreen in order to finish a project due in a few hours. :P It's funny to see th