* [RFC PATCH v1 0/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1-cache entry in dt
@ 2025-01-24 15:20 Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-24 15:20 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 " Alireza Sanaee
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alireza Sanaee @ 2025-01-24 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: robh, mark.rutland, devicetree
Cc: linux-kernel, jonathan.cameron, linux-arm-kernel,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi, zhao1.liu, yangyicong, rrendec,
catalin.marinas
This RFC adds support for l1-cache entry in device tree. The changes are
based on the assumptions that nodes will have l1-cache to describe first
cache layer. This patch enable to describe shared caches for SMTs which
is not currently possible about which there were discussions already
[1,2,3].
The question that I am seeking feedback for is to see if this might be a
good way to go about solving this issue? Or instead using phandle and
index in CPU nodes is a better way to go according to prior discussion,
I have another patch this investigates this approach [2]. Apparently,
every single CPU will need to addressed in the cpu-map structure as per
Mark mentioned earlier [4].
Sample device tree:
cpu@0 {
next-level-cache = <0x800b>;
phandle = <0x800a>;
reg = <0x00>;
enable-method = "psci";
compatible = "arm,cortex-a57";
device_type = "cpu";
l1-cache {
next-level-cache = <0x8008>;
cache-level = <0x01>;
d-cache-sets = <0x100>;
d-cache-block-size = <0x40>;
d-cache-size = <0x10000>;
i-cache-sets = <0x100>;
i-cache-block-size = <0x40>;
i-cache-size = <0x10000>;
phandle = <0x800b>;
};
};
cpu@1 {
next-level-cache = <0x8009>;
phandle = <0x8007>;
reg = <0x01>;
enable-method = "psci";
compatible = "arm,cortex-a57";
device_type = "cpu";
l1-cache {
next-level-cache = <0x8008>;
cache-level = <0x01>;
d-cache-sets = <0x100>;
d-cache-block-size = <0x40>;
d-cache-size = <0x10000>;
i-cache-sets = <0x100>;
i-cache-block-size = <0x40>;
i-cache-size = <0x10000>;
phandle = <0x8009>;
};
l2-cache {
next-level-cache = <0x8002>;
cache-level = <0x02>;
cache-unified;
cache-sets = <0x800>;
cache-block-size = <0x40>;
cache-size = <0x100000>;
phandle = <0x8008>;
};
};
1) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/CAL_JsqLGEvGBQ0W_B6+5cME1UEhuKXadBB-6=GoN1tmavw9K_w@mail.gmail.com/
2) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20250110161057.445-1-alireza.sanaee@huawei.com/
3) https://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-arm/2025-01/msg00014.html
4) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/Z4FJZPRg75YIUR2l@J2N7QTR9R3/
Alireza Sanaee (1):
base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 entry in dt
drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 entry in dt
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 ` Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-27 12:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-01-27 16:24 ` Rob Herring
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alireza Sanaee @ 2025-01-24 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: robh, mark.rutland, devicetree
Cc: linux-kernel, jonathan.cameron, linux-arm-kernel,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi, zhao1.liu, yangyicong, rrendec,
catalin.marinas
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;
+
+ struct device_node *next __free(device_node) = of_find_next_cache_node(np);
+ if (next) {
+ 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;
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 entry in dt
2025-01-24 15:20 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 " Alireza Sanaee
@ 2025-01-27 12:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-01-28 11:44 ` Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-27 16:24 ` Rob Herring
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2025-01-27 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alireza Sanaee
Cc: robh, mark.rutland, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi, zhao1.liu, yangyicong, rrendec,
catalin.marinas
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;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 entry in dt
2025-01-24 15:20 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 " Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-27 12:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
@ 2025-01-27 16:24 ` Rob Herring
2025-01-28 11:48 ` Alireza Sanaee
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2025-01-27 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alireza Sanaee
Cc: mark.rutland, devicetree, linux-kernel, jonathan.cameron,
linux-arm-kernel, shameerali.kolothum.thodi, zhao1.liu,
yangyicong, rrendec, catalin.marinas
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 9:20 AM 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.
This commit message needs some work. Read documentation on writing
commit messages.
Why/when does describing L1 cache in the cpu nodes not work? That is
the assumption in the bindings. If we're changing that, there may need
to be a binding/spec change.
>
> 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"))
This is the same code as of_check_cache_node(), use it.
> + return true;
> +
> + struct device_node *next __free(device_node) = of_find_next_cache_node(np);
> + if (next) {
> + 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;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 entry in dt
2025-01-27 12:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
@ 2025-01-28 11:44 ` Alireza Sanaee
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alireza Sanaee @ 2025-01-28 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron
Cc: robh, mark.rutland, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi, zhao1.liu, yangyicong, rrendec,
catalin.marinas
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 12:11:36 +0000
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> 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;
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the feedback, I'll replace this.
> > +
> > + 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.
Makes sense, will change this too on the next version.
Thanks,
Alireza
>
> > + 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;
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] base/of/cacheinfo: support l1 entry in dt
2025-01-27 16:24 ` Rob Herring
@ 2025-01-28 11:48 ` Alireza Sanaee
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alireza Sanaee @ 2025-01-28 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Herring
Cc: mark.rutland, devicetree, linux-kernel, jonathan.cameron,
linux-arm-kernel, shameerali.kolothum.thodi, zhao1.liu,
yangyicong, rrendec, catalin.marinas
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:24:13 -0600
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 9:20 AM 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.
>
> This commit message needs some work. Read documentation on writing
> commit messages.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the feedback.
I am going to update this text to give more background.
>
> Why/when does describing L1 cache in the cpu nodes not work? That is
> the assumption in the bindings. If we're changing that, there may need
> to be a binding/spec change.
Yes, I will have to send a patch regarding the spec too. Will send a
patch as well.
My plan is to first send a new revision and then send the updates
related to the spec, and then hopefully we can converge there.
Thanks,
Alireza
>
> >
> > 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"))
>
> This is the same code as of_check_cache_node(), use it.
>
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + struct device_node *next __free(device_node) =
> > of_find_next_cache_node(np);
> > + if (next) {
> > + 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;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-01-28 11:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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
2025-01-28 11:44 ` Alireza Sanaee
2025-01-27 16:24 ` Rob Herring
2025-01-28 11:48 ` Alireza Sanaee
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).