Patch "EDAC, amd64: Fix reporting of Chip Select sizes on Fam17h" has been added to the 4.11-stable tree
Subsystems (3)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
EDAC, amd64: Fix reporting of Chip Select sizes on Fam17h
to the 4.11-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
edac-amd64-fix-reporting-of-chip-select-sizes-on-fam17h.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.11 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.
From eb77e6b80f3bed262c7773236f0fb84649fd3091 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yazen Ghannam <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:11:54 -0500
Subject: EDAC, amd64: Fix reporting of Chip Select sizes on Fam17h
From: Yazen Ghannam <[email protected]>
commit eb77e6b80f3bed262c7773236f0fb84649fd3091 upstream.
The wrong index into the csbases/csmasks arrays was being passed to the function to compute the chip select sizes, which resulted in the wrong size being computed. Address that so that the correct values are computed and printed.
Also, redo how we calculate the number of pages in a CS row.
--- drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from [email protected] are
queue-4.11/edac-amd64-fix-reporting-of-chip-select-sizes-on-fam17h.patch --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c +19 -21
@@ -782,24 +782,26 @@ static void debug_dump_dramcfg_low(strucstatic void debug_display_dimm_sizes_df (struct amd64_pvt *pvt,u8 ctrl) { -u32 *dcsb = ctrl ? pvt->csels[1 ].csbases : pvt->csels[0 ].csbases; -int dimm, size0, size1; +int dimm, size0, size1, cs0, cs1;edac_printk (KERN_DEBUG ,EDAC_MC ,"UMC%d chip selects:\n" , ctrl);for (dimm =0 ; dimm <4 ; dimm++) { size0 =0 ; + cs0 = dimm *2 ; -if (dcsb[dimm*2 ] &DCSB_CS_ENABLE ) - size0 = pvt->ops->dbam_to_cs (pvt, ctrl,0 , dimm); +if (csrow_enabled (cs0, ctrl, pvt)) + size0 = pvt->ops->dbam_to_cs (pvt, ctrl,0 , cs0); size1 =0 ; -if (dcsb[dimm*2 +1 ] &DCSB_CS_ENABLE ) - size1 = pvt->ops->dbam_to_cs (pvt, ctrl,0 , dimm); + cs1 = dimm *2 +1 ; + +if (csrow_enabled (cs1, ctrl, pvt)) + size1 = pvt->ops->dbam_to_cs (pvt, ctrl,0 , cs1);amd64_info (EDAC_MC ": %d: %5dMB %d: %5dMB\n" , - dimm *2 , size0, - dimm *2 +1 , size1); + cs0, size0, + cs1, size1); } }
@@ -2756,26 +2758,22 @@ skip:* encompasses * */ -static u32 get_csrow_nr_pages (struct amd64_pvt *pvt,u8 dct,int csrow_nr) +static u32 get_csrow_nr_pages (struct amd64_pvt *pvt,u8 dct,int csrow_nr_orig) { -u32 cs_mode, nr_pages;u32 dbam = dct ? pvt->dbam1 : pvt->dbam0; +int csrow_nr = csrow_nr_orig; +u32 cs_mode, nr_pages; +if (!pvt->umc) + csrow_nr >>=1 ; -/* -* The math on this doesn't look right on the surface because x/2*4 can -* be simplified to x*2 but this expression makes use of the fact that -* it is integral math where 1/2=0. This intermediate value becomes the -* number of bits to shift the DBAM register to extract the proper CSROW -* field. -*/ - cs_mode =DBAM_DIMM (csrow_nr /2 , dbam); + cs_mode =DBAM_DIMM (csrow_nr, dbam); - nr_pages = pvt->ops->dbam_to_cs (pvt, dct, cs_mode, (csrow_nr /2 )) - << (20 -PAGE_SHIFT ); + nr_pages = pvt->ops->dbam_to_cs (pvt, dct, cs_mode, csrow_nr); + nr_pages <<=20 -PAGE_SHIFT ;edac_dbg (0 ,"csrow: %d, channel: %d, DBAM idx: %d\n" , - csrow_nr, dct, cs_mode); + csrow_nr_orig, dct, cs_mode);edac_dbg (0 ,"nr_pages/channel: %u\n" , nr_pages);return nr_pages;