| Message ID | 20200306045516.382647-1-amitay@ozlabs.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] libpdbg: Fix address translation for p9 chiplet | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch | fail | Failed to apply to any branch |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch | warning | Failed to apply on branch master (8b4611b5d8e7e2279fe4aa80c892fcfe10aa398d) |
On Friday, 6 March 2020 3:55:15 PM AEDT Amitay Isaacs wrote: > Signed-off-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@ozlabs.org> > --- > libpdbg/p9chip.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/libpdbg/p9chip.c b/libpdbg/p9chip.c > index da7ed00..c82f00e 100644 > --- a/libpdbg/p9chip.c > +++ b/libpdbg/p9chip.c > @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ static int p9_chiplet_probe(struct pdbg_target *target) > > static uint64_t p9_chiplet_translate(struct pdbg_target *target, uint64_t > addr) { > - return addr + pdbg_target_address(target, NULL); > + return (addr & 0xc0ffffff) + pdbg_target_address(target, NULL); Any reason you didn't use 0xffffffffc0ffffff to match what p9_scom_addr.H does? Not sure if any of the other bits are used in this context, but it wouldn't be the first time we have been burnt with mismatched address translation. - Alistair > } > > static struct chiplet p9_chiplet = {
On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 16:51 +1100, Alistair Popple wrote: > On Friday, 6 March 2020 3:55:15 PM AEDT Amitay Isaacs wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@ozlabs.org> > > --- > > libpdbg/p9chip.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/libpdbg/p9chip.c b/libpdbg/p9chip.c > > index da7ed00..c82f00e 100644 > > --- a/libpdbg/p9chip.c > > +++ b/libpdbg/p9chip.c > > @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ static int p9_chiplet_probe(struct pdbg_target > > *target) > > > > static uint64_t p9_chiplet_translate(struct pdbg_target *target, > > uint64_t > > addr) { > > - return addr + pdbg_target_address(target, NULL); > > + return (addr & 0xc0ffffff) + pdbg_target_address(target, NULL); > > Any reason you didn't use 0xffffffffc0ffffff to match what > p9_scom_addr.H does? Not > sure if any of the other bits are used in this context, but it > wouldn't be the > first time we have been burnt with mismatched address translation. Well our tests only used the addresses up to 0xffffffff and nothing beyond that. And up to those addressess the 32-bit mask was good enough. I was trying to figure out how the addressing worked, but figured out the mask by trial and error. :-) Let's use the 64-bit mask as is supposed to be. > > - Alistair > > > } > > > > static struct chiplet p9_chiplet = { > > > Amitay.
diff --git a/libpdbg/p9chip.c b/libpdbg/p9chip.c index da7ed00..c82f00e 100644 --- a/libpdbg/p9chip.c +++ b/libpdbg/p9chip.c @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ static int p9_chiplet_probe(struct pdbg_target *target) static uint64_t p9_chiplet_translate(struct pdbg_target *target, uint64_t addr) { - return addr + pdbg_target_address(target, NULL); + return (addr & 0xc0ffffff) + pdbg_target_address(target, NULL); } static struct chiplet p9_chiplet = {
Signed-off-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@ozlabs.org> --- libpdbg/p9chip.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)