[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571d0194-dd3e-4a68-8879-d6b66276afe5@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 10:09:01 -0500
From: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, sunilvl@...tanamicro.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
james.morse@....com, jhugo@...eaurora.org, john.garry@...wei.com,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, pierre.gondois@....com, sudeep.holla@....com,
tiantao6@...wei.com
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] riscv: cacheinfo: initialize cacheinfo's level and
type from ACPI PPTT
Hi,
On 5/9/24 02:32, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> Before cacheinfo can be built correctly, we need to initialize level
> and type. Since RISC-V currently does not have a register group that
> describes cache-related attributes like ARM64, we cannot obtain them
> directly, so now we obtain cache leaves from the ACPI PPTT table
> (acpi_get_cache_info()) and set the cache type through split_levels.
>
> Suggested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
> Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> Reviewed-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> index 30a6878287ad..d6c108c50cba 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> * Copyright (C) 2017 SiFive
> */
>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/cpu.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <asm/cacheinfo.h>
> @@ -78,6 +79,27 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
> struct device_node *prev = NULL;
> int levels = 1, level = 1;
>
> + if (!acpi_disabled) {
> + int ret, fw_levels, split_levels;
> +
> + ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &fw_levels, &split_levels);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + BUG_ON((split_levels > fw_levels) ||
> + (split_levels + fw_levels > this_cpu_ci->num_leaves));
> +
> + for (; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels; level++) {
> + if (level <= split_levels) {
> + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level);
> + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level);
> + } else {
> + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level);
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size"))
> ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level);
> if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size"))
Yes, still looks good.
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Thanks,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists