}Ok, So - from digging up some history about the bug, looks like this was
@@ -205,8 +209,9 @@ static int amd64_set_scrub_rate(struct mem_ctl_info *mci, u32 bw)
if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0xf)
min_scrubrate = 0x0;
- /* F15h Erratum #505 */
- if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15)
+ /* F15h Models 0x00 - 0x0f Erratum #505 */
+ if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 &&
+ boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x30)
This check leaves holes in the model space:
You want:
boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 0x30)
provided everything below 0x30 is affected. But you say models 0x0-0xf
are only affected, which means:
boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 0x10)
Please recheck which is it.
f15h_select_dct(pvt, 0);Ditto.
return __amd64_set_scrub_rate(pvt->F3, bw, min_scrubrate);
@@ -218,8 +223,9 @@ static int amd64_get_scrub_rate(struct mem_ctl_info *mci)
u32 scrubval = 0;
int i, retval = -EINVAL;
- /* F15h Erratum #505 */
- if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15)
+ /* F15h Models 0x00 - 0x0f Erratum #505 */
+ if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 &&
+ boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x30)
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c: In function âf15_m30h_match_to_this_nodeâ:
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c:1552:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
+ u8 dct_offset_en = (u8) ((dct_cont_base_reg >> 3) & BIT(0));â
+ u8 dct_sel = (u8) ((dct_cont_base_reg >> 4) & 0x7);
+ u8 intlv_addr = dct_sel_interleave_addr(pvt);
+ u8 node_id = dram_dst_node(pvt, range);
+ u8 intlv_en = dram_intlv_en(pvt, range);
+
+ edac_dbg(1, "(range %d) SystemAddr= 0x%llx Limit=0x%llx\n",
+ range, sys_addr, get_dram_limit(pvt, range));
The rest looks ok.