[PATCH] arm64: erratum: Workaround for Kryo reserved system register read

James Morse james.morse at arm.com
Sun Apr 10 23:49:20 PDT 2016

On 08/04/16 11:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 08/04/16 10:58, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 07/04/16 18:31, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> +	All system register encodings above use the form
>>>> +
>>>> +	Op0, Op1, CRn, CRm, Op2.
>>>> +
>>>> +	Note that some of the encodings listed above include
>>>> +	the system register space reserved for the following
>>>> +	identification registers which may appear in future revisions
>>>> +	of the ARM architecture beyond ARMv8.0.
>>>> +	This space includes:
>>>> +	ID_AA64PFR[2-7]_EL1
>>>> +	ID_AA64DFR[2-3]_EL1
>>>> +	ID_AA64AFR[2-3]_EL1
>>>> +	ID_AA64ISAR[2-7]_EL1
>>>> +	ID_AA64MMFR[2-7]_EL1
>> AFAIK, the id space is unassigned. So the naming above could cause confusion
>> if the register is named something else.
> It is reserved *at the moment*, but already has a defined behaviour. My
> worry is that when some new architecture revision comes around, we start
> using these registers without thinking much about it (because we should
> be able to). At this point, your SoC will catch fire and nobody will
> have a clue about the problem because it is not apparent in the code.
> I'd really like to see something a bit more forward looking that covers
> that space for good.

At the risk of volunteering...
Registering these instructions with the undef hooks would be ideal, but they
won't catch this instruction abort. I guess refactor them to be generic faulting
instruction hooks, and have a list for the existing undef cases, and a new one
for this instruction abort.

This won't cover early code in head.S, or KVM code that runs at EL2. Is this
sufficient, or should any approach cover those too?



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list