[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160905162200.GR1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:22:00 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc: ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, l.stach@...gutronix.de,
arnd@...db.de, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: LPAE: initialize cachepolicy correctly
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 04:31:40PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2016-09-04 15:09, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 10:33:31PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote:
> >> The cachepolicy variable gets initialized using a masked pmd
> >> So far, the pmd has been masked with flags valid for the 2-page
> >> table format. In the LPAE case, this lead to a wrong assumption
> >> of what the initial cachepolicy has been used. Later a check
> >> forces the cache policy to writealloc and prints the following
> >> warning:
> >> Forcing write-allocate cache policy for SMP
> >>
> >> This patch uses PMD_SECT_WBWA to mask all cache setting flags.
> >> The define represents the complete mask of the cache relevant
> >> flags for both page table formats.
> >
> > PMD_SECT_WBWA is just one possible combination, it's not a bit-mask.
> > We need a new definition.
>
> Agreed, it just happens to be the same as the bit-mask in both
> page-table layouts.
>
> Does PMD_SECT_CACHE_MASK sounds like a reasonable identifier for it?
Yep, thanks.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists