by Michael Ellerman

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] powerpc/dt_cpu_ftrs: Add feature for 2nd DAWR

Ravi Bangoria <[email protected]> writes:
> On 7/21/20 4:59 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Ravi Bangoria <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 7/17/20 11:14 AM, Jordan Niethe wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Ravi Bangoria
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Add new device-tree feature for 2nd DAWR. If this feature is present,
>>>>> 2nd DAWR is supported, otherwise not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h | 7 +++++--
>>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/dt_cpu_ftrs.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>> index e506d429b1af..3445c86e1f6f 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>>> #define CPU_FTR_P9_TLBIE_ERAT_BUG LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0001000000000000)
>>>>> #define CPU_FTR_P9_RADIX_PREFETCH_BUG LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0002000000000000)
>>>>> #define CPU_FTR_ARCH_31 LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0004000000000000)
>>>>> +#define CPU_FTR_DAWR1 LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0008000000000000)
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -497,14 +498,16 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>>> #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE \
>>>>> (CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | \
>>>>> CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>>> - CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>>> + CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>>> + CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>>>>> #else
>>>>> #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE \
>>>>> (CPU_FTRS_PPC970 | CPU_FTRS_POWER5 | \
>>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER6 | CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | \
>>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | CPU_FTRS_CELL | CPU_FTRS_PA6T | \
>>>>> CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>>> - CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>>> + CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>>> + CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>>
>>>> Instead of putting CPU_FTR_DAWR1 into CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE should it go
>>>> into CPU_FTRS_POWER10?
>>>> Then it will be picked up by CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE.
>>>
>>> I remember a discussion about this with Mikey and we decided to do it
>>> this way. Obviously, the purpose is to make CPU_FTR_DAWR1 independent of
>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER10 because DAWR1 is an optional feature in p10. I fear
>>> including CPU_FTR_DAWR1 in CPU_FTRS_POWER10 can make it forcefully enabled
>>> even when device-tree property is not present or pa-feature bit it not set,
>>> because we do:
>>>
>>> { /* 3.1-compliant processor, i.e. Power10 "architected" mode */
>>> .pvr_mask = 0xffffffff,
>>> .pvr_value = 0x0f000006,
>>> .cpu_name = "POWER10 (architected)",
>>> .cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_POWER10,
>>
>> The pa-features logic will turn it off if the feature bit is not set.
>>
>> So you should be able to put it in CPU_FTRS_POWER10.
>>
>> See for example CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE.
>
> Ah ok. scan_features() clears the feature if the bit is not set in
> pa-features. So it should work find for powervm. I'll verify the same
> thing happens in case of baremetal where we use cpu-features not
> pa-features. If it works in baremetal as well, will put it in
> CPU_FTRS_POWER10.

When we use DT CPU features we don't use CPU_FTRS_POWER10 at all.

We construct a cpu_spec from scratch with just the base set of features:

static struct cpu_spec __initdata base_cpu_spec = {
.cpu_name = NULL,
.cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_DT_CPU_BASE,

And then individual features are enabled via the device tree flags.

cheers

2020-07-21 14:20:14

by Ravi Bangoria

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] powerpc/dt_cpu_ftrs: Add feature for 2nd DAWR

On 7/21/20 7:37 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Ravi Bangoria <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 7/21/20 4:59 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Ravi Bangoria <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On 7/17/20 11:14 AM, Jordan Niethe wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Ravi Bangoria
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add new device-tree feature for 2nd DAWR. If this feature is present,
>>>>>> 2nd DAWR is supported, otherwise not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h | 7 +++++--
>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/dt_cpu_ftrs.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>>> index e506d429b1af..3445c86e1f6f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>>> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>>>> #define CPU_FTR_P9_TLBIE_ERAT_BUG LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0001000000000000)
>>>>>> #define CPU_FTR_P9_RADIX_PREFETCH_BUG LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0002000000000000)
>>>>>> #define CPU_FTR_ARCH_31 LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0004000000000000)
>>>>>> +#define CPU_FTR_DAWR1 LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0008000000000000)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -497,14 +498,16 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>>>> #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE \
>>>>>> (CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | \
>>>>>> CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>>>> - CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>>>> + CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>>>> + CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>>>>>> #else
>>>>>> #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE \
>>>>>> (CPU_FTRS_PPC970 | CPU_FTRS_POWER5 | \
>>>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER6 | CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | \
>>>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | CPU_FTRS_CELL | CPU_FTRS_PA6T | \
>>>>>> CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>>>> - CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>>>> + CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>>>> + CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>>>
>>>>> Instead of putting CPU_FTR_DAWR1 into CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE should it go
>>>>> into CPU_FTRS_POWER10?
>>>>> Then it will be picked up by CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE.
>>>>
>>>> I remember a discussion about this with Mikey and we decided to do it
>>>> this way. Obviously, the purpose is to make CPU_FTR_DAWR1 independent of
>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER10 because DAWR1 is an optional feature in p10. I fear
>>>> including CPU_FTR_DAWR1 in CPU_FTRS_POWER10 can make it forcefully enabled
>>>> even when device-tree property is not present or pa-feature bit it not set,
>>>> because we do:
>>>>
>>>> { /* 3.1-compliant processor, i.e. Power10 "architected" mode */
>>>> .pvr_mask = 0xffffffff,
>>>> .pvr_value = 0x0f000006,
>>>> .cpu_name = "POWER10 (architected)",
>>>> .cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_POWER10,
>>>
>>> The pa-features logic will turn it off if the feature bit is not set.
>>>
>>> So you should be able to put it in CPU_FTRS_POWER10.
>>>
>>> See for example CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE.
>>
>> Ah ok. scan_features() clears the feature if the bit is not set in
>> pa-features. So it should work find for powervm. I'll verify the same
>> thing happens in case of baremetal where we use cpu-features not
>> pa-features. If it works in baremetal as well, will put it in
>> CPU_FTRS_POWER10.
>
> When we use DT CPU features we don't use CPU_FTRS_POWER10 at all.
>
> We construct a cpu_spec from scratch with just the base set of features:
>
> static struct cpu_spec __initdata base_cpu_spec = {
> .cpu_name = NULL,
> .cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_DT_CPU_BASE,
>
>
> And then individual features are enabled via the device tree flags.

Ah good. I was under a wrong impression that we use cpu_specs[] for all
the cases. Thanks mpe for explaining in detail :)

Ravi