[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2dd1a34-c97a-3865-cd5e-ccc4877bfe3e@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 14:53:28 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: "kwangwoo.lee@...com" <kwangwoo.lee@...com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc: "hyunchul3.kim@...com" <hyunchul3.kim@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"woosuk.chung@...com" <woosuk.chung@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: convert __dma_* routines to use start, size
On 01/08/16 14:36, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 01/08/16 00:45, kwangwoo.lee@...com wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> -----8<-----
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
>>>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
>>>>> index 10b017c4bdd8..1c005c90387e 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,16 @@ lr .req x30 // link register
>>>>> add \size, \kaddr, \size
>>>>> sub \tmp2, \tmp1, #1
>>>>> bic \kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp2
>>>>> -9998: dc \op, \kaddr
>>>>> +9998:
>>>>> + .ifeqs "\op", "cvac"
>>>>> +alternative_if_not ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE
>>>>> + dc cvac, \kaddr
>>>>> +alternative_else
>>>>> + dc civac, \kaddr
>>>>> +alternative_endif
>>>>> + .else
>>>>> + dc \op, \kaddr
>>>>> + .endif
>>>>> add \kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp1
>>>>> cmp \kaddr, \size
>>>>> b.lo 9998b
>>>>
>>>> I agree that it looks not viable because it makes the macro bigger and
>>>> conditional specifically with CVAC op.
>>>
>>> Actually, having had a poke around in the resulting disassembly, it
>>> looks like this does work correctly. I can't think of a viable reason
>>> for the whole dcache_by_line_op to ever be wrapped in yet another
>>> alternative (which almost certainly would go horribly wrong), and it
>>> would mean that any other future users are automatically covered for
>>> free. It's just horrible to look at at the source level.
>>
>> Then, Are you going to send a patch for this? Or should I include this change?
>
> I'll do a bit more testing just to make sure, then spin a separate patch
> (and try to remember to keep you on CC..)
...and said patch turns out to conflict with 823066d9edcd, since I
hadn't realised it's already been fixed! So you can go ahead with the
dcache_by_line_op cleanup as well, just rebase onto arm64/for-next/core
(or linux/master, since it's been pulled already).
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists