From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3869C433FF for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:35:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ACA22064A for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:35:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7ACA22064A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:57166 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hxl0J-00070c-Fw for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:35:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40841) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hxkzB-0006Op-TL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:34:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hxkzA-0007il-Tn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:34:09 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:35510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hxkz8-0007gV-Cb; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:34:06 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7E4WbaD064895; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:33:58 -0400 Received: from ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (1b.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.27]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uc9bkc2p5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:33:58 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7E4VGMg031634; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:33:56 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.27]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2u9nj63qrh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:33:56 +0000 Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.106]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7E4Xu3F51511578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:33:56 GMT Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4902805C; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:33:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A39728058; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:33:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.124.31.79] (unknown [9.124.31.79]) by b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:33:55 +0000 (GMT) To: David Gibson References: <20190719024555.18845-1-aik@ozlabs.ru> <20190812100849.GF3947@umbus.fritz.box> <3722a768-c8bb-ed04-e450-b18cba8e6296@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20190813141755.GN3947@umbus.fritz.box> From: Aravinda Prasad Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:03:54 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190813141755.GN3947@umbus.fritz.box> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-14_01:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=18 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908140041 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 148.163.156.1 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [GIT PULL for qemu-pseries REPOST] pseries: Update SLOF firmware image X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tuesday 13 August 2019 07:47 PM, David Gibson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:00:24PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote: >> >> >> On Monday 12 August 2019 03:38 PM, David Gibson wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:14:39PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote: >>>> Alexey/David, >>>> >>>> With the SLOF changes, QEMU cannot resize the RTAS blob. Resizing is >>>> required for FWNMI support which extends the RTAS blob to include an >>>> error log upon a machine check. >>>> >>>> The check to valid RTAS buffer fails in the guest because the rtas-size >>>> updated in QEMU is not reflecting in the guest. >>>> >>>> Any workaround for this? >>> >>> Well, we should still be able to do it, it just means fwnmi would need >>> a SLOF change. It's an inconvenience, but not really a big deal. >> >> Yes. Alexey and I were discussing about the following changes to SLOf: >> >> diff --git a/lib/libhvcall/hvcall.S b/lib/libhvcall/hvcall.S >> index b19f6dbeff2c..880d29a29122 100644 >> --- a/lib/libhvcall/hvcall.S >> +++ b/lib/libhvcall/hvcall.S >> @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ ENTRY(hv_rtas) >> ori r3,r3,KVMPPC_H_RTAS@l >> HVCALL >> blr >> + .space 2048 >> .globl hv_rtas_size >> hv_rtas_size: >> .long . - hv_rtas; >> >> >> But this will statically reserve space for RTAS even when >> SPAPR_CAP_FWNMI_MCE is OFF. > > Sure. We could flag that in the DT somehow, and have SLOF reserve the > space conditionally. > > Or we could just ignore it. 2 kiB is miniscule compared to our minimum > guest size, and our current RTAS is microscopic compared to PowerVM. I also think so, 2kiB is miniscule so we can allocate it statically. Alexey, Can you please include the above one line fix to SLOF? > > -- Regards, Aravinda