From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:20:25 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v6 02/12] drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache
 properties early
In-Reply-To: <65f78c99-8b86-0098-7ced-899840a4bf16@arm.com>
References: <20180113005920.28658-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20180113005920.28658-3-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20180115123338.GB5473@e107155-lin>
 <65f78c99-8b86-0098-7ced-899840a4bf16@arm.com>
Message-ID: <ca64334c-9345-705c-80d8-f2deb924a679@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 16/01/18 21:07, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 01/15/2018 06:33 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:59:10PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>> The original intent in cacheinfo was that an architecture
>>> specific populate_cache_leaves() would probe the hardware
>>> and then cache_shared_cpu_map_setup() and
>>> cache_override_properties() would provide firmware help to
>>> extend/expand upon what was probed. Arm64 was really
>>> the only architecture that was working this way, and
>>> with the removal of most of the hardware probing logic it
>>> became clear that it was possible to simplify the logic a bit.
>>>
>>> This patch combines the walk of the DT nodes with the
>>> code updating the cache size/line_size and nr_sets.
>>> cache_override_properties() (which was DT specific) is
>>> then removed. The result is that cacheinfo.of_node is
>>> no longer used as a temporary place to hold DT references
>>> for future calls that update cache properties. That change
>>> helps to clarify its one remaining use (matching
>>> cacheinfo nodes that represent shared caches) which
>>> will be used by the ACPI/PPTT code in the following patches.
>>>
>>> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
>>> Cc: Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> ? arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c |? 1 +
>>> ? drivers/base/cacheinfo.c????? | 65
>>> +++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>>> ? include/linux/cacheinfo.h???? |? 1 +
>>> ? 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> index 10ed2749e246..6f4500233cf8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
>>> ????????? CACHE_WRITE_BACK
>>> ????????? | CACHE_READ_ALLOCATE
>>> ????????? | CACHE_WRITE_ALLOCATE;
>>> +??? cache_of_set_props(this_leaf, node);
>>
>> This may be necessary but can it be done as later patch ? So far nothing
>> is added that may break riscv IIUC.
> 
> Well I think you have a bisection issue where the additional information
> will disappear between this patch and wherever we put this code back in.
> 

Hmm, I am sorry but I fail to see the issue. Before this change,
populate_cache_leaves just populated the info as per ci_leaf_init in
arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c and cache_override_properties used to fill
the remaining.

After this patch, the same is achieved in cache_shared_cpu_map_setup.

In both case, it was by the end of detect_cache_attributes, so I see no
issue.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep