errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

[Josef Kellermann]

This patch fixes a potential system hang.
Don't know why this patch isn't included if 'CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1'.

Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann

[Alex G.]

Erratum 89 is already handled on line 390:

if (!is_cpu_pre_b3()) {

/* Erratum 89 ... */
    msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR);
    msr.lo |= 1 << 3;

If this is also needed when CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1, then we should
move the existing one out of the
#if CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 0
so it gets executed in both cases, as opposed to duplicating it.

Alex

On 02/02/2011 07:39 PM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> This patch fixes a potential system hang.
> Don't know why this patch isn't included if 'CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann

[Josef Kellermann]

Am 02.02.2011 20:11, schrieb Alex G.:
> Erratum 89 is already handled on line 390:
>
> if (!is_cpu_pre_b3()) {
>  /* Erratum 89 ... */
>  msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR);
>  msr.lo |= 1<<  3;
>
> If this is also needed when CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1, then we should
> move the existing one out of the
> #if CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 0
> so it gets executed in both cases, as opposed to duplicating it.
>
> Alex
>
> On 02/02/2011 07:39 PM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> > This patch fixes a potential system hang.
> > Don't know why this patch isn't included if 'CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1'.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann

Ok,
now it gets executed in both cases.

Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann

[Alex G.]

That looks way better. :)

Acked-by: Alexandru Gagniuc

On 02/02/2011 10:17 PM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> Am 02.02.2011 20:11, schrieb Alex G.:
> > Erratum 89 is already handled on line 390:
> >
> > if (!is_cpu_pre_b3()) {
> > /* Erratum 89 ... */
> > msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR);
> > msr.lo |= 1 << 3;
> >
> > If this is also needed when CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1, then we should
> > move the existing one out of the
> > #if CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 0
> > so it gets executed in both cases, as opposed to duplicating it.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On 02/02/2011 07:39 PM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> > > This patch fixes a potential system hang.
> > > Don't know why this patch isn't included if 'CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1'.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann  
>
> Ok,
> now it gets executed in both cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann

[PATCH] errata#89 patch for Family 0Fh Prozessors

[Alex G.]

Can someone with commit access please commit this patch, or NACK it?

Alex

On 02/02/2011 11:55 PM, Alex G. wrote:
> That looks way better. :)
>
> Acked-by: Alexandru Gagniuc
>
> On 02/02/2011 10:17 PM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> > Am 02.02.2011 20:11, schrieb Alex G.:
> > > Erratum 89 is already handled on line 390:
> > >
> > > if (!is_cpu_pre_b3()) {
> > > /* Erratum 89 ... */
> > > msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR);
> > > msr.lo |= 1 << 3;
> > >
> > > If this is also needed when CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1, then we should
> > > move the existing one out of the
> > > #if CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 0
> > > so it gets executed in both cases, as opposed to duplicating it.
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On 02/02/2011 07:39 PM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> > > > This patch fixes a potential system hang.
> > > > Don't know why this patch isn't included if 'CONFIG_K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1'.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann  
> >
> > Ok,
> > now it gets executed in both cases.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Kellermann

[Rudolf Marek]

While we are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;)
which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time please try to 
check if it is correct.

Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek

Thanks,
Rudolf

[Alex G.]

src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/coherent_ht_car.c was renamed to someting else
since then (I wasn't around then), and the patch can no longer be applied.

Can you please check this?

Alex

On 02/02/2011 11:20 PM, Rudolf Marek wrote:
> While we are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;)
> which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time please
> try to check if it is correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek
>
> Thanks,
> Rudolf

[Josef Kellermann]

Am 02.02.2011 22:20, schrieb Rudolf Marek:
> While we are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;)
> which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time 
> please try to check if it is correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek
>
> Thanks,
> Rudolf

Hi,
are you sure ?

-#if K8_REV_F_SUPPORT == 1
-        /* Erratum 131... */
+        /* Erratum 131 is fixed together with erratum 169 */
          msr = rdmsr(NB_CFG_MSR);
-        msr.lo |= 1<<  20;
+        msr.lo |= 1<<  32;<=======================
          wrmsr(NB_CFG_MSR, msr);

Josef

[Alex G.]

On 02/03/2011 10:17 AM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> > e are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;)
> > which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time
> > please try to check if it is correct.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rudolf
>
> Hi,
> are you sure ?

You're right:

AMD Publication #33610, page34

"[Regarding erratum #131]
Systems implementing the workaround for erratum #169 should not apply
this workaround."

So it seems AMD recommends either or, but not both.

Page 59:
"[Regarding erratum #169]
The workaround for this erratum supersedes the workaround for erratum
#131. When implementing
this workaround, the workaround for erratum #131 should not be applied."

So we better implement only 169, and explain in the comments why 131 is
left out.

Alex

[Josef Kellermann]

Am 03.02.2011 10:14, schrieb Alex G.:
> On 02/03/2011 10:17 AM, Josef Kellermann wrote:
> > > e are at it. I'm attaching some very old patch (r2978 ;)
> > > which contains some errata fixes too, if you have some spare time
> > > please try to check if it is correct.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rudolf
> >
> > Hi,
> > are you sure ?
>
> You're right:
>
> AMD Publication #33610, page34
>
> "[Regarding erratum #131]
> Systems implementing the workaround for erratum #169 should not apply
> this workaround."
>
> So it seems AMD recommends either or, but not both.
>
> Page 59:
> "[Regarding erratum #169]
> The workaround for this erratum supersedes the workaround for erratum
> #131. When implementing
> this workaround, the workaround for erratum #131 should not be applied."
>
> So we better implement only 169, and explain in the comments why 131 is
> left out.
>
> Alex

Hi,
sorry for the misunderstanding.
Setting bit 32 in msr should be ->  'msr.hi |= (1<<  0)', no?

Josef

[Alex G.]

> Hi,
> sorry for the misunderstanding.
> Setting bit 32 in msr should be ->  'msr.hi |= (1<<  0)', no?

LOL! Nice catch.

This is what happens when you're still up at 6AM, obsessive drawing
lines on a Google Earth printscreen in order to finish a project due in
a few hours. :P

It's funny to see those logic mistakes made with so much ease. As for
#169, we should set 'msr.hi |= (1<<  0)' :P, "set
F0x68[22:21](DsNpReqLmt0) to 01b," and drop #131 altogether.

I'm assuming the second part means 0:18.0, register 0x6b-0x68[22:21], or
Rx6a[6-5].

reg = pci_read_config8(0:18.0, 0x6a);
reg |= 0x20;
pci_write_config8(0:18.0, 0x6a, reg);

Alex