[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARNUMkD79h-uG_EhRFr4gE2pDM8w57EddOMbt-mO0xc8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 22:13:55 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: arm@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: uniphier: change release address of spin-table
Hi Mark.
2016-04-15 22:05 GMT+09:00 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:30:47PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> The 8-byte register located at 0x59801200 on this SoC is dedicated
>> for waking up secondary CPUs. We can use it and save normal memory.
>
> Generally, it is not safe to use MMIO registers to back spin-table. The
> kernel maps the spin table location with cacheable attributes, so there
> may be speculative accesses to any registes in the same (64K) page, and
> a writeback may be larger than the 8-byte register width (which the
> device might not accept, triggering an SError).
>
> Given that, I do not think this is a good idea.
I did not know this. Thanks for your advice!
Arnd, Olof
Please drop this patch.
(I think 1/2 is still OK.)
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists