[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Fix errata for some 1074K cores.

To: Leonid Yegoshin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Fix errata for some 1074K cores.
From: Florian Fainelli <>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:50:25 +0100
Cc: Paul Burton <>, "Steven J. Hill" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=MGaJ0sT7ON2vof9rxXS72tPDzBqNjk0VtPHfAxzH/Xs=; b=dI+1Z0KNOZn0F0vEv405B6fS12tCwe4S3oz0iQOiOprTnc1dJ4McTkOe4l4JYaRCc3 /DqFMymtLJKWI06y0q7qw2qEHO8bWFHDSMs+OOoM12rEeekCGpZVl73zJkw+EIJ+b2cl pDNyMtv7MDgdK58zkfm2omCEZWZUX8LE2b3TKOZycp3L0GgiZ4+ZrhlzxFLmHJKh0KWg J6SRbgtyBqSQmff7wBNs5kmM0B8xciF8HOrlMgGMAMhEq83cJ9T2dB5HKP2z4om/6x2J mQoB7J5e1w6VLxTgMDuH6rRV/ocrG71bR1xhvR7Y6O71yEDiIsaijuHQIaQ3HjI+7E1n QdcA==
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>

2013/9/12 Leonid Yegoshin <>:
> It is not mine, I just fixed an existent code which applies a wrong errata
> to 1074K.
> Errata fix did exist before me.

Are there any reasons why you cannot quote an internal note about this
errata which would give a better idea of what this code is about?
Sorry but the diff really does not help understand what is happening
without a proper explanation of why this is required. At first glance
it would like some revisions of the CPU are affected by some D$ bug?

> - Leonid.
> On 09/12/2013 08:12 AM, Paul Burton wrote:
>> Agreed, my point is not about your code but your commit message. If I'm
>> reading a commit which works around CPU errata I should not have to go and
>> ask the hardware engineers or even read an errata document in order to know
>> what you're doing. Your commit message should explain the errata, its
>> effects and how your patch works around the problem.
>> Paul
>> On 12/09/13 16:05, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> 2013/9/12 Leonid Yegoshin <>:
>>>> Treat it as is.
>>>> It is a dirty laundry of HW engineers and you may need to communicate
>>>> with them or read Errata docs on CPU.
>>>> If it is about a way how it is written - ask Steven, initially it was in
>>>> mainland probe code but he think it should be a separate function. I just
>>>> corrected him, pointing that erratas on 74K and 1074K are different. But
>>>> because he insist on having the same CPU_74K for both, so...
>>> If you take a look at another CPU company such as ARM, they provide
>>> lengthy explanations for their various Erratas:
>>> config PJ4B_ERRATA_4742
>>>          bool "PJ4B Errata 4742: IDLE Wake Up Commands can Cause the
>>> CPU Core to Cease Operation"
>>>          depends on CPU_PJ4B && MACH_ARMADA_370
>>>          default y
>>>          help
>>>            When coming out of either a Wait for Interrupt (WFI) or a Wait
>>> for
>>>            Event (WFE) IDLE states, a specific timing sensitivity exists
>>> between
>>>            the retiring WFI/WFE instructions and the newly issued
>>> subsequent
>>>            instructions.  This sensitivity can result in a CPU hang
>>> scenario.
>>>            Workaround:
>>>            The software must insert either a Data Synchronization Barrier
>>> (DSB)
>>>            or Data Memory Barrier (DMB) command immediately after the
>>>            instruction
>>> I really think that you should aim for the same level of information
>>> so that people know whether this is relevant for their platform,
>>> whether they have the ECO applied etc...


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