linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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;



  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).