[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca64334c-9345-705c-80d8-f2deb924a679@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:20:25 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net, will.deacon@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mark.rutland@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
jhugo@...eaurora.org, wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com,
Jonathan.Zhang@...ium.com, ahs3@...hat.com,
Jayachandran.Nair@...ium.com, austinwc@...eaurora.org,
lenb@...nel.org, vkilari@...eaurora.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <albert@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/12] drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache
properties early
On 16/01/18 21:07, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/15/2018 06:33 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:59:10PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>> The original intent in cacheinfo was that an architecture
>>> specific populate_cache_leaves() would probe the hardware
>>> and then cache_shared_cpu_map_setup() and
>>> cache_override_properties() would provide firmware help to
>>> extend/expand upon what was probed. Arm64 was really
>>> the only architecture that was working this way, and
>>> with the removal of most of the hardware probing logic it
>>> became clear that it was possible to simplify the logic a bit.
>>>
>>> This patch combines the walk of the DT nodes with the
>>> code updating the cache size/line_size and nr_sets.
>>> cache_override_properties() (which was DT specific) is
>>> then removed. The result is that cacheinfo.of_node is
>>> no longer used as a temporary place to hold DT references
>>> for future calls that update cache properties. That change
>>> helps to clarify its one remaining use (matching
>>> cacheinfo nodes that represent shared caches) which
>>> will be used by the ACPI/PPTT code in the following patches.
>>>
>>> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
>>> Cc: Albert Ou <albert@...ive.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 1 +
>>> drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 65
>>> +++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>>> include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> index 10ed2749e246..6f4500233cf8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
>>> CACHE_WRITE_BACK
>>> | CACHE_READ_ALLOCATE
>>> | CACHE_WRITE_ALLOCATE;
>>> + cache_of_set_props(this_leaf, node);
>>
>> This may be necessary but can it be done as later patch ? So far nothing
>> is added that may break riscv IIUC.
>
> Well I think you have a bisection issue where the additional information
> will disappear between this patch and wherever we put this code back in.
>
Hmm, I am sorry but I fail to see the issue. Before this change,
populate_cache_leaves just populated the info as per ci_leaf_init in
arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c and cache_override_properties used to fill
the remaining.
After this patch, the same is achieved in cache_shared_cpu_map_setup.
In both case, it was by the end of detect_cache_attributes, so I see no
issue.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists