[PATCH] ARM: Fix errata 751472 handling on Cortex-A9 r1p*

[Rob Herring]

On 11/15/2012 08:37 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:31:33PM +0000, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 11/15/2012 05:01 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:54:48AM +0000, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2012 04:21 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>>> * Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> [121114 13:59]:
>>>>>> On 11/14/2012 02:32 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Checking for the bit already set should work in this case, I'll post
>>>>>>> a patch for that shortly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you actually read the state of the diagnostic register in non-secure
>>>>>> mode? If you can on the A9, is the same true on A8 or others?
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like it can be read on at least TI omap 4430 which is A9.
>>>>> But it reads as zero, so the below patch is what I came up with.
>>>>>
>>>>> No idea if assuming that zero value for the diagnostic register
>>>>> is safe.. What's the default value of the diagnostic register supposed
>>>>> to be?
>>>>
>>>> RTFM. Oh, wait it's a super secret, undocumented register. We shouldn't
>>>> even be talking about it.
>>>>
>>>> It could vary by rev, but I see 0 for the reset value, so this would not
>>>> work if the bootloader did not do any setup of the diagnostic register.
>>>>
>>>> One way to determine secure mode on the A9 would be seeing if you can
>>>> change the auxcr register. Something like this (untested):
>>>>
>>>> mrc	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1; Read ACTLR
>>>> eor	r1, r0, #0x100		; Modify alloc in 1 way
>>>> mcr	p15, 0, r1, c1, c0, 1
>>>> mrc	p15, 0, r2, c1, c0, 1; Read ACTLR
>>>> mcr	p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1	; Restore original value
>>>> cmp	r1, r2
>>>> bne	skip_errata
>>>
>>> This would fail on platforms where Linux runs in non-secure mode. What
>>> we do for some errata workarounds is to test whether the bit was already
>>> set and avoid writing the register. But this assumes that, for a given
>>> workaround in the kernel, there is a corresponding workaround in the
>>> code running before the kernel (boot-loader, firmware) which sets that
>>> bit.
>>>
>>> Since the kernel will run more often in non-secure mode (on Cortex-A15
>>> you need this for the virtualisation extensions) I strongly suggest that
>>> the workaround (usually undocumented bit setting) is done before the
>>> kernel is started and we simply remove it from Linux (or add a clear
>>> comment that it only works if running in secure mode; if unsure say
>>> 'N').
>>>
>>> I don't think it's worth the hassle detecting whether the kernel runs in
>>> secure or non-secure mode, just assume the latter and get SoC vendors to
>>> update the boot loaders or firmware (if possible) with any errata
>>> workarounds.
>>
>> There's other places we need to know secure vs. non-secure mode like
>> whether we can do smc calls or not.
>>
>> So we should make all these work-arounds depend on !MULTI_PLATFORM then.
> 
> Only the workarounds that set bits in secure-only registers.

Right.

>> Does that work for Versatile Express CA9? It needs ARM_ERRATA_751472.
> 
> On VE Linux runs in secure mode, so it's fine.

WTF? You are contradicting yourself. Don't determine secure mode or not,
but apply work-arounds only in secure mode? How does a kernel built to
boot on secure and non-secure chips know that? The requirement would be
that every platform have proper work-arounds setup by the bootloader
regardless of running in secure or non-secure mode.

Rob