[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <e82f8eaa-39ea-4d64-90a8-e2edd3769a9c@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:42:51 +0000
From: "Jiaxun Yang" <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
To: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, "Jinyang Shen" <shenjinyang@...ngson.cn>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, "Xuerui Wang" <kernel@...0n.name>
Cc: loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] loongarch: Introduce sys_loongarch_flush_icache syscall
在2025年1月4日一月 下午3:07,Arnd Bergmann写道:
[...]
Hi Arnd,
Thanks for your comments!
>
> I think for consistency with other architectures, we want start/length/flags
> instead of start/end/flags.
>
> The meaning of the third argument is rather inconsistent between
> architectures already, but at least the second argument is always
> length so far.
So this is actually designed to be aligned with RISC-V's semantics,
and thus all arguments are aligned with RISC-V.
IMO RISC-V's semantics is a better design that we should take, as
I replied to Jinyang above.
>
>
>>> diff --git a/scripts/syscall.tbl b/scripts/syscall.tbl
>>> index ebbdb3c42e9f74613b003014c0baf44c842bb756..723fe859956809f26d6ec50ad7812933531ef687 100644
>>> --- a/scripts/syscall.tbl
>>> +++ b/scripts/syscall.tbl
>>> @@ -298,6 +298,8 @@
>>> 244 csky set_thread_area sys_set_thread_area
>>> 245 csky cacheflush sys_cacheflush
>>>
>>> +259 loongarch loongarch_flush_icache sys_loongarch_flush_icache
>>
>> Can we use cacheflush as arc, csky and nios2?
>
> Agreed. I would also use the number 244 instead of 259 here.
259 is also selected to be aligned with RISC-V.
Thanks
>
> Arnd
--
- Jiaxun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists