[PATCH v6] edac: synps: Added EDAC support for zynq ddr ecc controller

[punnaiah choudary kalluri]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp at alien8.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 10:51:22AM +0530, punnaiah choudary kalluri wrote:
>> >> +/**
>> >> + * synps_edac_get_eccstate - Return the controller ecc enable/disable status
>> >> + * @base:    Pointer to the ddr memory contoller base address
>> >> + *
>> >> + * This routine returns the ECC enable/disable status for the controller
>> >> + *
>> >> + * Return: a ecc status boolean i.e true/false - enabled/disabled.
>> >> + */
>> >> +static bool synps_edac_get_eccstate(void __iomem *base)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     enum dev_type dt;
>> >> +     u32 ecctype;
>> >> +     bool state = false;
>> >> +
>> >> +     dt = synps_edac_get_dtype(base);
>> >> +     if (dt == DEV_UNKNOWN)
>> >> +             return state;
>> >> +
>> >> +     ecctype = readl(base + SCRUB_OFST) & SCRUB_MODE_MASK;
>> >> +
>> >> +     if ((ecctype == SCRUB_MODE_SECDED) && (dt == DEV_X2)) {
>> >> +             state = true;
>> >> +             writel(0x0, base + ECC_CTRL_OFST);
>> >
>> > Out of curiosity, why is that register write needed here? Maybe
>> > forgotten? It looks unbalanced...
>>
>> This is needed to start capturing the correctable and uncorrectable errors.
>> Writing 1 to this register bits will clear the counters and writing 0 will start
>> the counters.
>
> So this definitely doesn't belong here then.
>
> It should be the *last* thing you do after having initialized the whole
> driver entirely and successfully and you're ready to start logging
> errors.
>
> Now you're calling it in synps_edac_mc_probe() so the counters will
> start before you have even initialized the rest of the driver.
>
> What is worse, if one of those things you do on the init path fails, you
> enter prematurely and the counters are still running. Not good.

Understood. thanks.

>
>> It is crossing 80 cols. so, there is line break here. I feel the other
>> way as the check patch throws warning for this.
>
> And I'm saying you shouldn't follow checkpatch to the letter and think
> for yourself instead.
>
> What do you think is more readable?

Definitely the second one :). I will update accordingly

Thanks,
Punnaiah

>
> This:
>
>                        dimm = csi->channels[j]->dimm;
>                        dimm->edac_mode = EDAC_FLAG_SECDED;
>                        dimm->mtype = synps_edac_get_mtype(priv->baseaddr);
>                        dimm->nr_pages =
>                            (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / csi->nr_channels;
>                        dimm->grain = SYNPS_EDAC_ERR_GRAIN;
>                        dimm->dtype = synps_edac_get_dtype(priv->baseaddr);
>
> or this:
>
>                        dimm             = csi->channels[j]->dimm;
>                        dimm->mtype      = synps_edac_get_mtype(priv->baseaddr);
>                        dimm->grain      = SYNPS_EDAC_ERR_GRAIN;
>                        dimm->dtype      = synps_edac_get_dtype(priv->baseaddr);
>                        dimm->nr_pages   = (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / csi->nr_channels;
>                        dimm->edac_mode  = EDAC_FLAG_SECDED;
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
> --
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html