[PATCH 1/9] ARM: vexpress: remove automatic errata workaround selection

[Rob Herring]

On 07/11/2012 10:18 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:02:05PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 07/11/2012 08:36 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
>>> From: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
>>>
>>> The vexpress Kconfig setup tries to be clever^Whelpful and selects some
>>> errata workarounds for certain revisions of the Cortex-A9 and PL310,
>>> which may be required depending on the coretile.
>>>
>>> Since the mach-vexpress can support A5, A7 and A15 coretiles, let's
>>> defer errata workaround selection to the user and instead propose
>>> recommended workarounds in the defconfig. Note that the use of the
>>> savedefconfig target removed some unrelated, redundant entries from the
>>> file.
>>
>> Most workarounds are runtime conditioned or don't have significant
>> impact, so why not leave them enabled? For a single kernel image, we're
>> going to have to basically turn on every errata work-around. Perhaps we
>> should only have config options if they are not runtime enabled and have
>> significant performance impact. I think having the settings in the
>> defconfig is error prone, not mention if threats from Linus to remove
>> all defconfigs actually happened it would be lost. In general, I don't
>> think end users have enough information to determine what needs to be
>> turned on. You need the errata list as well which is not public. Some of
>> the errata help text says "rXpY and all later revisions" which changes
>> when a new core revision comes out.
> 
> The problem I have with the current scheme for vexpress is that you can't
> disable the workarounds when you know they are not needed. The Kconfig
> *forces* them to be enabled -- that's certainly not right. Of the
> workarounds in question, ARM_ERRATA_720789 is not runtime enabled and I
> would like to deselect if when running on my A5, A7 or A15 cores. The
> description clearly states it's an A9 erratum, so I don't think users will
> have any difficulty knowing that they don't need it for other cores
> (although I agree that it should be enabled for single zimage).
> 
> The defconfig changes were just a courtesy to reflect the change in the
> Kconfig, I'm happy for them to be dropped.

It's not a courtesy. It's the only place it remains documented other
than git history.

What if you just make the existing config option user selectable?

That doesn't solve the problem with this errata. Obviously on my newer
A9, I wouldn't want this errata enabled either (assuming there is
measurable impact). So we should come up with a better solution for
single kernel image.

Rob

> Will
>