[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220616115342.GA11289@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:53:42 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wefu@...hat.com, guoren@...nel.org,
cmuellner@...ux.com, philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu, samuel@...lland.org,
atishp@...shpatra.org, anup@...infault.org, mick@....forth.gr,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
drew@...gleboard.org, Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] riscv: Implement Zicbom-based cache management
operations
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:46:45AM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Without CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYNC_DMA_FOR_DEVICE and friends
> dev_is_dma_coherent() will always return true otherwise the dma_coherent
> attribute. Hence the "coherent" value for every system not managing things
> will suddenly show as non-coherent where it showed as coherent before.
Yes.
> As we already have detection-points for non-coherent systems (zicbom
> detection, t-head errata detection)
No, we don't. There are plenty of reasons to support Zicbom without
every having any non-coherent DMA periphals. Or just some non-coherent
ones. So that alone is not a good indicator at all.
The proper interface for that in DT-based setups i of_dma_is_coherent(),
which looks at the dma-coherent DT property. And given that RISC-V
started out as all coherent we need to follow the powerpc way
(CONFIG_OF_DMA_DEFAULT_COHERENT) and default to coherent with an
explcit propery for non-coherent devices, and not the arm/arm64 way
where non-coherent is the default and coherent devices need the property.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists