> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 23:19:10 +0000
> From: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
>
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 23:47:32 +0100 (CET)
> Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> (I knew I forgot to CC: one person ...)
>
> > > Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 22:35:27 +0000
> > > From: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
> > >
> > > Hi Heinrich,
> > >
> > > > On 1/9/22 22:31, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 20:08:41 +0100
> > > > > Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 1/9/22 18:30, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > > >>> The arm64 version of the exception command was just defining the
> > > > >>> undefined exception, but actually copied the AArch32 instruction.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Replace that with an encoding that is guaranteed to be and stay
> > > > >>> undefined. Also add instructions to trigger unaligned access faults
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> a breakpoint.
> > > > >>> This brings ARM64 on par with ARM(32) for the exception command.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
> > > > >>> ---
> > > > >>> cmd/arm/exception64.c | 42
> > > > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > >>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> diff --git a/cmd/arm/exception64.c b/cmd/arm/exception64.c
> > > > >>> index d5de50a0803..1a9730e6aec 100644
> > > > >>> --- a/cmd/arm/exception64.c
> > > > >>> +++ b/cmd/arm/exception64.c
> > > > >>> @@ -12,14 +12,46 @@ static int do_undefined(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp,
> > > > >>> int flag, int argc,
> > > > >>> char *const argv[])
> > > > >>> {
> > > > >>> /*
> > > > >>> - * 0xe7f...f. is undefined in ARM mode
> > > > >>> - * 0xde.. is undefined in Thumb mode
> > > > >>> + * Instructions starting with the upper 16 bits all 0 are
> > > > >>> permanently
> > > > >>> + * undefined. The lower 16 bits can be used for some kind of
> > > > >>> immediate.
> > > > >>> + * --- ARMv8 ARM (ARM DDI 0487G.a C6.2.339: "UDF")
> > > > >>> */
> > > > >>> - asm volatile (".word 0xe7f7defb\n");
> > > > >>> + asm volatile (".word 0x00001234\n");
> > > > >>> +
> > > > >>> + return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> > > > >>> +}
> > > > >>> +
> > > > >>> +static int do_unaligned(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc,
> > > > >>> + char *const argv[])
> > > > >>> +{
> > > > >>> + /*
> > > > >>> + * The load acquire instruction requires the data source to be
> > > > >>> + * naturally aligned, and will fault even if strict alignment
> > > > >>> fault
> > > > >>> + * checking is disabled.
> > > > >>> + * --- ARMv8 ARM (ARM DDI 0487G.a B2.5.2: "Alignment of data
> > > > >>> accesses")
> > > > >>
> > > > >> According to DI0487G_b_armv8_arm.pdf available at
> > > > >> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0487/latest the
> > > > >> generation of
> > > > >> an alignment fault for ldar depends on FEAT_LSE2 (Large System
> > > > >> Extensions v2) which is mandatory for ARMv8.4. See p. B2-161.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well found, but I wonder if that matters for the SoCs running U-Boot.
> > > > > It looks like the Apple M1 is the only one so far and will probably
> > > > > stay for a while.
> > > >
> > > > Developers are using U-Boot on Apple M1 already.
> > >
> > > Yeah, sorry, I didn't realise that the M1 is fully v8.4 compliant. Most
> > > other SoCs I checked are v8.2/v8.3 + some 8.4 features, at most. The
> > > Cortex-A76/Neoverse-N1 for instance does not have LSE2.
> > >
> > > > > But I can of course check ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1.AT before executing the
> > > > > LDAR,
> > > > > and will ask around for a better method to provoke unaligned
> > > > > accesses.
> > > >
> > > > It is sufficient if you update the comment for this function. Returning
> > > > CMD_RET_FAILURE as return value if unaligned access is supported is
> > > > fine. Cf. cmd/riscv/exception.c. (On RISC-V OpenSBI emulates unaligned
> > > > access.)
> > >
> > > Well, I now have the check and a message, always returning FAILURE in
> > > this case. Let me see if people in the office have a better idea...
> > >
> > > > Maybe we should also add a comment in doc/usage/exception.rst.
> > >
> > > By the way: this was triggered by my need to check SError generation. I
> > > don't know of a nice architectural way to trigger an SError (yet), but
> > > some SoCs happily generate one by accessing unimplemented memory regions
> > > (beyond DRAM, for instance). So I could trigger it on my Juno board
> > > with a specific address, but not on an Allwinner board so far.
> > > Do you think it's worthwhile to have a platform specific address in
> > > Kconfig to implement the serror exception sub-command?
> >
> > Well, on the M1 writing to the serial port output register with the
> > wrong width (8 bits instead of 32 bits) triggered an SError while
> > still producing output. But once the OS booted, it did panic with an
> > SError. Which indeed caused some head scratching like you described.
> >
> > Do you want me to test this series on the M1?
>
> Oh yes, please, that would be much appreciated! Just booting would be a
> good test already, but bonus points for enabling CMD_EXCEPTION and
> testing all subcommands.
Booting the M1 mini still works. With CMD_EXCEPTION enabled:
=> exception breakpoint
"Synchronous Abort" handler, esr 0xf200007b
=> exception unaligned
<nothing happens>
=> exception undefined
"Synchronous Abort" handler, esr 0x02000000
So:
Tested-by: Mark Kettenis <kette...@openbsd.org>
FWIF.
