From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
To: Alireza Sanaee <alireza.sanaee@huawei.com>
Cc: <robh@kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>, <zhao1.liu@intel.com>,
<yangyicong@hisilicon.com>, <rrendec@redhat.com>,
<catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 entry in dt
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 12:11:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250127121136.00007f14@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250124152008.313-2-alireza.sanaee@huawei.com>
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:20:08 +0000
Alireza Sanaee <alireza.sanaee@huawei.com> wrote:
> This commit simply assumes that CPU node entries may point to a cache
> node that basically act as a l1-cache and there are some CPU nodes
> without describing any caches but a next-level-cache property that
> points to l1-cache.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alireza Sanaee <alireza.sanaee@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> index cf0d455209d7..d119228fc392 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -83,7 +83,31 @@ bool last_level_cache_is_shared(unsigned int cpu_x, unsigned int cpu_y)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
>
> -static bool of_check_cache_nodes(struct device_node *np);
> +static bool of_check_cache_node(struct device_node *np) {
> + if (of_property_present(np, "cache-size") ||
> + of_property_present(np, "i-cache-size") ||
> + of_property_present(np, "d-cache-size") ||
> + of_property_present(np, "cache-unified"))
> + return true;
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool of_check_cache_nodes(struct device_node *np)
> +{
> + if (of_property_present(np, "cache-size") ||
> + of_property_present(np, "i-cache-size") ||
> + of_property_present(np, "d-cache-size") ||
> + of_property_present(np, "cache-unified"))
> + return true;
if (of_check_cache_node(np))
return true;
> +
> + struct device_node *next __free(device_node) = of_find_next_cache_node(np);
> + if (next) {
Hmm. Was like this before, but general kernel style is no brackets for single statement
if block.
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
>
> /* OF properties to query for a given cache type */
> struct cache_type_info {
> @@ -218,11 +242,23 @@ static int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu)
> while (index < cache_leaves(cpu)) {
> this_leaf = per_cpu_cacheinfo_idx(cpu, index);
> if (this_leaf->level != 1) {
> + /* Always go one level down for level > 1 */
> struct device_node *prev __free(device_node) = np;
> np = of_find_next_cache_node(np);
> if (!np)
> break;
> + } else {
> + /* For level 1, check compatibility */
> + if (!of_device_is_compatible(np, "cache") &&
> + !of_check_cache_node(np)) {
> + struct device_node *prev __free(device_node) = np;
> + np = of_find_next_cache_node(np);
> + if (!np)
> + break;
> + continue; /* Skip to next index without processing */
> + }
> }
> +
> cache_of_set_props(this_leaf, np);
> this_leaf->fw_token = np;
> index++;
> @@ -234,22 +270,6 @@ static int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static bool of_check_cache_nodes(struct device_node *np)
> -{
> - if (of_property_present(np, "cache-size") ||
> - of_property_present(np, "i-cache-size") ||
> - of_property_present(np, "d-cache-size") ||
> - of_property_present(np, "cache-unified"))
> - return true;
> -
> - struct device_node *next __free(device_node) = of_find_next_cache_node(np);
> - if (next) {
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> - return false;
> -}
> -
> static int of_count_cache_leaves(struct device_node *np)
> {
> unsigned int leaves = 0;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-27 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-24 15:20 [RFC PATCH v1 0/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1-cache entry in dt Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-24 15:20 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 " Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-27 12:11 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2025-01-28 11:44 ` Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-27 16:24 ` Rob Herring
2025-01-28 11:48 ` Alireza Sanaee
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250127121136.00007f14@huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=alireza.sanaee@huawei.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=rrendec@redhat.com \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
--cc=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
--cc=zhao1.liu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.