From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753408AbeAQOiW (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:38:22 -0500
Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:41336 "EHLO
        foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753332AbeAQOiU (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:38:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:38:16 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Run enable method for errata work arounds on late
 CPUs
Message-ID: <20180117143816.GF22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180117100556.29270-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20180117122548.GE22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <766fe9e9-ff68-c06f-c253-d548a2a3cbcb@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <766fe9e9-ff68-c06f-c253-d548a2a3cbcb@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 01:22:19PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 17/01/18 12:25, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:05:56AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>When a CPU is brought up after we have finalised the system
> >>wide capabilities (i.e, features and errata), we make sure the
> >>new CPU doesn't need a new errata work around which has not been
> >>detected already. However we don't run enable() method on the new
> >>CPU for the errata work arounds already detected. This could
> >>cause the new CPU running without potential work arounds.
> >>It is upto the "enable()" method to decide if this CPU should
> >>do something about the errata.
> >>
> >>Fixes: commit 6a6efbb45b7d95c84 ("arm64: Verify CPU errata work arounds on hotplugged CPU")
> >>Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> >>---
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 9 ++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> >>index 90a9e465339c..54e41dfe41f6 100644
> >>--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> >>+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> >>@@ -373,15 +373,18 @@ void verify_local_cpu_errata_workarounds(void)
> >>  {
> >>  	const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps = arm64_errata;
> >>-	for (; caps->matches; caps++)
> >>-		if (!cpus_have_cap(caps->capability) &&
> >>-			caps->matches(caps, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)) {
> >>+	for (; caps->matches; caps++) {
> >>+		if (cpus_have_cap(caps->capability)) {
> >>+			if (caps->enable)
> >>+				caps->enable((void *)caps);
> >
> >Do we really need this cast?
> 
> Yes, otherwise we would be passing a "const *" where a "void *" is expected,
> and the compiler warns. Or we could simply change the prototype of the
> enable() method to accept a const capability ptr.

Hmmm, what is this argument for exactly?  cpufeature.h doesn't explain
what it is.

Does any enable method use this for anything other than a struct
arm64_cpu_capabilities const * ?  If not, it would be better to
specifiy that.

Cheers
---Dave