[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linaro-acpi
Subject:    Re: [Linaro-acpi] APEI question
From:       Assaf Hoffman <hoffman () marvell ! com>
Date:       2013-10-24 8:54:16
Message-ID: D0A7C18DB695354E9AE930826578922D0146D5E1E0D1 () IL-MB01 ! marvell ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Tomasz,
The Linux code was written for x86. I'm not x86 guy but I can assume that \
ghes_do_proc() do not deal with CPER_SEC_PROC_GENERIC because for x86 it has no \
meaning. For x86 there are only memory and PEX errors.  All other IOs are behind PEX. \
Anyway, ghes_do_proc() process GHES errors, which means these are not standard errors \
or platform vendor decides to do FFM to run errata fix in firmware . Otherwise, x86 \
architectural  errors will be reported using APEI error types 0-2 and 6-8. I do not \
understand what Chen means when he refer to "processor errors". Moreover, I think \
only SW can decide whether uncorrectable error is fatal or not. Thanks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tomasz Nowicki [mailto:tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:33 AM
To: linaro-acpi
Cc: Assaf Hoffman; Robert Richter; Al Stone
Subject: Fwd: Re: APEI question

Hi,

This is interesting answer to my question so I am shearing it with you.

Tomasz


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: APEI question
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:38:26 -0400
From: Chen, Gong <gong.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@semihalf.com>

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:16:13AM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:16:13 +0200
> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@semihalf.com>
> To: chen gong <Chen@gchen.bj.intel.com>
> CC: gong.chen@linux.intel.com
> Subject: Re: APEI question
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/24.0
> 
> Let me put this in the different way.
> 
> ghes_do_proc() process errors which are reported via APEI. It handles 
> with CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM and CPER_SEC_PCIE error types. I wander why 
> this function is not taking care of CPER_SEC_PROC_GENERIC.
> 
Yes, the spec has covered all kinds of situations but the reality is cruel. Even FFM \
is enabled, not all errors can be covered by firmware. Based on the fact, only \
memory/IO CE and IO UC errors can be handled well by firmware by now. For processer \
errors, as a fact, I never saw so-called CE errors, only UC, even fatal error. As a \
                result, you will get a MCE. You can consider that firmware just
*bypass* this kind of error. In some way, that's why eMCA happens as a successor. \
That's all. Otherwise I will cross the red line ;-).




_______________________________________________
Linaro-acpi mailing list
Linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-acpi


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]