[PATCH][v3] fsl_rio: move machine_check handler into machine_check_e500 & machine_check_e500mc
Bounine, Alexandre
Alexandre.Bounine at idt.com
Sat Nov 13 03:30:06 EST 2010
Shaohui Xie <b21989 at freescale.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
> index a45a63c..9ab7b97 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
> #endif
> #include <asm/kexec.h>
> #include <asm/ppc-opcode.h>
> +#include <asm/rio.h>
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUGGER) || defined(CONFIG_KEXEC)
> int (*__debugger)(struct pt_regs *regs) __read_mostly;
> @@ -425,6 +426,12 @@ int machine_check_e500mc(struct pt_regs *regs)
> unsigned long reason = mcsr;
> int recoverable = 1;
>
> + if (reason & MCSR_BUS_RBERR) {
> + recoverable = fsl_rio_mcheck_exception(regs);
> + if (recoverable == 1)
> + goto silent_out;
> + }
> +
> printk("Machine check in kernel mode.\n");
> printk("Caused by (from MCSR=%lx): ", reason);
>
> @@ -500,6 +507,7 @@ int machine_check_e500mc(struct pt_regs *regs)
> reason & MCSR_MEA ? "Effective" : "Physical",
addr);
> }
>
> +silent_out:
> mtspr(SPRN_MCSR, mcsr);
> return mfspr(SPRN_MCSR) == 0 && recoverable;
> }
> @@ -507,6 +515,13 @@ int machine_check_e500mc(struct pt_regs *regs)
> int machine_check_e500(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> unsigned long reason = get_mc_reason(regs);
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (reason & MCSR_BUS_RBERR) {
> + ret = fsl_rio_mcheck_exception(regs);
> + if (ret == 1)
> + return ret;
> + }
Do we really need 'ret' variable here?
There is no further use of it by the rest of the code.
Maybe just return 1 here if fsl_rio_mcheck_exception() returns 1 ?
>
> printk("Machine check in kernel mode.\n");
> printk("Caused by (from MCSR=%lx): ", reason);
> @@ -536,7 +551,7 @@ int machine_check_e500(struct pt_regs *regs)
> if (reason & MCSR_BUS_RPERR)
> printk("Bus - Read Parity Error\n");
>
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
> }
> #elif defined(CONFIG_E200)
> int machine_check_e200(struct pt_regs *regs)
Works for RapidIO as expected now.
Thank you,
Alex.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list