From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:14:13 +0100 Message-ID: <2198633.UpIyI82Yon@wuerfel> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <54B9240A.7060003@amd.com> <20150116145545.GR7091@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:58015 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751810AbbAPPOz (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:14:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20150116145545.GR7091@arm.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Will Deacon , Tom Lendacky , Mark Rutland , linaro-acpi , Catalin Marinas , Yijing Wang , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Timur Tabi , ACPI Devel Mailing List , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , "jcm@redhat.com" , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Randy Dunlap , Rafae On Friday 16 January 2015 14:55:45 Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:45:30PM +0000, Tom Lendacky wrote: > > I have tested ACPI-enablement patches for the amd-xgbe/amd-xgbe-phy > > drivers that I'm about to submit upstream with the V7 patch series > > on the AMD Seattle server platform. There does not appear to be support > > for the _CCA attribute in this patch series. The amd-xgbe driver will > > setup the device domain and cache attributes based on the presence of > > this attribute, but it requires the arch support to assign the proper > > DMA operations in order for it to all work correctly. > > > > Overriding the _CCA attribute in the driver, I was able to successfully > > test the driver and this patch series. > > Hopefully this will all be addressed when the IORT parts of ACPI have > settled down (the current proposal allows for these attributes to be > described as well as their interaction with things like IOMMUs). > > In the meantime, are you falling back to non-coherent DMA? If so, what > attributes have you settled on? We need to be really careful not to > corrupt data during cache invalidatation when mapping a non-coherent > buffer for the CPU. I think in case of ACPI we should use cache-coherent as the default, as this is what all servers will use for DMA masters. Arnd