From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] arm: mvebu: Added support for coherency fabric in mach-mvebu Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:43:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20121113104340.GD3940@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1351545108-18954-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <1351545108-18954-2-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20121105140258.GO3351@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <50A15A33.60405@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50A15A33.60405@free-electrons.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Lior Amsalem , Andrew Lunn , Ike Pan , Nadav Haklai , Ian Molton , David Marlin , Yehuda Yitschak , Jani Monoses , Mike Turquette , Tawfik Bayouk , Dan Frazier , Eran Ben-Avi , Leif Lindholm , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , "jcm@redhat.com" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , Ben Dooks , Russell King , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:21:07PM +0000, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > On 11/05/2012 03:02 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:11:44PM +0000, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> +int set_cpu_coherent(unsigned int hw_cpu_id, int smp_group_id) > >> +{ > >> + int reg; > >> + > >> + if (!coherency_base) { > >> + pr_warn("Can't make CPU %d cache coherent.\n", hw_cpu_id); > >> + pr_warn("Coherency fabric is not initialized\n"); > >> + return 1; > >> + } > >> + > >> + /* Enable the CPU in coherency fabric */ > >> + reg = readl(coherency_base + COHERENCY_FABRIC_CTL_OFFSET); > >> + reg |= 1 << (24 + hw_cpu_id); > >> + writel(reg, coherency_base + COHERENCY_FABRIC_CTL_OFFSET); > >> + > >> + /* Add CPU to SMP group */ > >> + reg = readl(coherency_base + COHERENCY_FABRIC_CFG_OFFSET); > >> + reg |= 1 << (16 + hw_cpu_id + (smp_group_id == 0 ? 8 : 0)); > >> + writel(reg, coherency_base + COHERENCY_FABRIC_CFG_OFFSET); > >> + > >> + return 0; > >> +} > > > > These writels may expand to code containing calls to outer_sync(), which > > will attempt to take a spinlock for the aurora l2. Given that the CPU isn't > > coherent, how does this play out with the exclusive store instruction in the > > lock? > > I dug a little this subject: and I am not sure there is problem. In SMP mode, > only the system cache mode of Aurora is used. In this mode, outer_cache.sync > is void then outer_sync() won't call any function, so there will be no > access to any spinlock. Hmm, that is pretty subtle and it doesn't really solve the bigger picture. printk takes logbuf_lock, for example, and I'm sure that by the time you get to this code you will have relied on exclusives behaving correctly. Will