[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] R4000/R4400 64-bit errata handling

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: [patch] R4000/R4400 64-bit errata handling
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:47:45 +0100
Cc:, Karsten Merker <>, Thiemo Seufer <>
In-reply-to: <>; from on Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:32:34PM +0100
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <>
User-agent: Mutt/
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:32:34PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

>  As you might already know there are a few nasty errata in the R4000 and
> the early R4400 that hit 64-bit operation badly.  Here is proposed code to
> detect them.  If an erratum is found in the processor and no workaround is
> applied to a kernel executable, the kernel refuses to run.  In all cases
> the result of the probes is output to the bootstrap log.
>  The code has bits that make use of features of non-standard tools
> (binutils and gcc).  But it doesn't depend on them -- when built with
> standard tools and run on an affected system, a kernel will simply fail,
> and on good systems it will run normally.  Therefore it's safe to apply,
> and if the ultimate implementation in the tools differs, the code may get
> adjusted appropriately later. 
>  I'd like to apply this code as soon as possible as I consider it a
> prerequisite for integrating 64-bit support for the DECstation (to prevent
> people from running unreliable code), so please tell me if there are any
> doubts about it.  Errata descriptions are available at the MIPS site --
> see: ''.  Unfortunately,
> despite several attempts to get a permission to duplicate them within
> Linux sources, I failed to get one.
>  I'd like to express my gratitude to Karsten and Thiemo for testing the
> code with their hardware.  Without their help, I wouldn't be able to
> prepare appropriate tests for errata my hardware doesn't suffer from. 

> +     __save_and_cli(flags);

> +     __restore_flags(flags);

I suggest to replace these with local_irq_save and local_irq_restore.
They're already deprecated for 2.4 and completly gone in 2.5.

Looks ok to me otherwise.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>