[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACna6rx26JEWSvckzzNdZ=XVySW9R6jbH-mkbc2JPxTrwJZWzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:31:21 +0100
From: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...tec.com>
Cc: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@....samsung.com>,
Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
Neelesh Gupta <neelegup@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@...il.com>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: bcm47xxsflash: use devm_ioremap_nocache() instead of KSEG0ADDR()
On 24 January 2016 at 21:26, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...tec.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, Brian Norris wrote:
>
>> IIUC, this could be solved by:
>> (a) using an uncached mapping or
>> (b) explicitly invalidating the relevant region after doing flash writes
>> or erasures
>
> Flash writes are usually much, much less frequent than reads, so
> optimising for reads is IMO the right direction. So a cached mapping is a
> good choice, however invalidation must then be done after a write.
Can you give me some hint where to look at for cache invalidation?
--
Rafał
Powered by blists - more mailing lists