[PATCHv3 3/3] edac: altera: Add EDAC support for Altera SDRAM
tthayer.linux at gmail.com
Fri May 9 13:31:53 PDT 2014
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp at alien8.de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:37:19PM -0500, Thor Thayer wrote:
>> Yes. Their reasoning is that they want to retain the rights and
>> warranty language with the file (just in case the COPYING file
> Ok, thanks for checking up on this.
>> Yes. I tested using edac_core.edac_mc_panic_on_ue=1 from the command
>> line and it worked fine. I'll add a comment to clarify. BTW, thanks
>> for your help on that.
> Sure, but the question still remains: do you want to panic on
> uncorrectable errors by default or want the user to decide? I guess this
> is something you can answer for your hardware...
Yes, good point. Our hardware can't recover from Double Bit Errors so
I'll go back to the panic() in that path. I like the flexibility of
the command line parameter though...
>> I considered using "volatile" variables, but decided against it after
>> I read Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt and my situation
>> doesn't fit into the exemptions. Is there a better way to handle this?
> Off the top of my head, I'd first look at compiler asm output to
> check what my compiler does with those writes and then take a look at
> employing the ACCESS_ONCE macro or something similar where we use the
> asm volatile() as an optimization stop for the compiler, among others.
> And then I'll look at asm again to make sure it does what it is supposed
> to do. Something to that effect, in any case...
The reads aren't optimized out now but I'd like to protect against
future optimization changes. I implemented ACCESS_ONCE and checked the
resulting asm output - it looks clean. Thanks.
> Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel