From: Alireza Sanaee <alireza.sanaee@huawei.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@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: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:44:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250128114430.00007ccc.alireza.sanaee@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250127121136.00007f14@huawei.com>
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;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-28 11:46 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
2025-01-28 11:44 ` Alireza Sanaee [this message]
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=20250128114430.00007ccc.alireza.sanaee@huawei.com \
--to=alireza.sanaee@huawei.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@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).