Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1681682
| From | Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat |
| Date | 2017-07-05 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tZWB4-Ve-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tZyfo-1QF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tZWro-Q4-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Rob Lippert <roblip@gmail.com> wrote:
> I checked the datasheets when I wrote this and ast2400 does not have
> the (undocumented) HICRB register bits 14,15 that enables the BMC to
> actually respond to the snoop'ed address.
You're right, it is marked as "reserved" in the datasheet for the ast2400.
>
> Without setting that bit in the ast2500 the transactions to that I/O
> port would timeout on the host side (although the BMC snoop logic
> would still see it and log it).
> Probably not an issue for x86 systems that don't have any LPC I/O
> error handling anyways but LPC timeouts causes issues with POWER
> systems since it sets a hardware FIR bit which can cause boot
> failures.
Interesting. I've been running experiments on x86 and I haven't seen
any errors, so that adds more credence to your point. If a device
doesn't respond within X time, three times in a row, you get a triple
fault. But, on x86, I don't think I've seen any mechanism with an
expectation that a port IO write will have a guaranteed response.
For the use-case I'm chasing, my goal being to snoop PoST codes from
the host, there is in the datasheet a post-code control register set,
but I haven't explored configuring them or whether someone has written
the fifo driver for them.
>
> -Rob
>
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
>> This driver can be used on the aspeed ast2400.
>>
>> Tested: ast2400 on quanta-q71l
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/misc/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c b/drivers/misc/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
>> index 593905565b74..0647cff6280a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/misc/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/misc/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
>> @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ static int aspeed_lpc_snoop_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> static const struct of_device_id aspeed_lpc_snoop_match[] = {
>> { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-snoop" },
>> + { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2400-lpc-snoop" },
>> { },
An approach would be to ditch this change and instead refer to the
ast2500-lpc-snoop in my device-tree to avoid anyone non-x86 from
running this configuration and hitting issues.
>> };
>>
>> --
>> 2.13.2.725.g09c95d1e9-goog
>>
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> - 2017-07-04 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> - 2017-07-04 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-04 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat Rob Lippert <roblip@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> - 2017-07-05 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> - 2017-07-05 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH linux dev-4.10] drivers/misc: (aspeed-lpc-snoop): Add ast2400 to compat Rob Lippert <roblip@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 20:00 +0200
csiph-web