[PATCH] MIPS: ralink: mt7621: do memory detection on KSEG1

[Chuanhong Guo]

 Hi!

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:14 AM Chuanhong Guo <gch981213 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's reported that current memory detection code occasionally detects
> larger memory under some bootloaders.
> Current memory detection code tests whether address space wraps around
> on KSEG0, which is unreliable because it's cached.
>
> Rewrite memory size detection to perform the same test on KSEG1 instead.
> While at it, this patch also does the following two things:
> 1. use a fixed pattern instead of a random function pointer as the magic
>    value.
> 2. add an additional memory write and a second comparison as part of the
>    test to prevent possible smaller memory detection result due to
>    leftover values in memory.
>
> Fixes: 139c949f7f0a MIPS: ("ralink: mt7621: add memory detection support")

I misplaced a bracket in this Fixes tag.

> Reported-by: Rui Salvaterra <rsalvaterra at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chuanhong Guo <gch981213 at gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c b/arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c
> index d6efffd4dd20..12c8808e0dea 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@
>
>  #include "common.h"
>
> -static void *detect_magic __initdata = detect_memory_region;
> +#define MT7621_MEM_TEST_PATTERN         0xaa5555aa
> +
> +static u32 detect_magic __initdata;
>
>  int pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
>  {
> @@ -58,24 +60,32 @@ phys_addr_t mips_cpc_default_phys_base(void)
>         panic("Cannot detect cpc address");
>  }
>
> +static bool __init mt7621_addr_wraparound_test(phys_addr_t size)
> +{
> +       void *dm = (void *)KSEG1ADDR(&detect_magic);
> +
> +       if (CPHYSADDR(dm + size) >= MT7621_LOWMEM_MAX_SIZE)
> +               return true;
> +       __raw_writel(MT7621_MEM_TEST_PATTERN, dm);
> +       if (__raw_readl(dm) != __raw_readl(dm + size))
> +               return false;
> +       __raw_writel(!MT7621_MEM_TEST_PATTERN, dm);

Someone on Github notified me that this second test pattern is incorrect.
I actually mean to use ~MT7621_MEM_TEST_PATTERN here.

I'll send a v2 fixing both issues.

--
Regards,
Chuanhong Guo