Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] riscv: mm: dma-noncoherent: Switch using function pointers for cache management

Lad, Prabhakar
2023-04-03T18:24:15Z

Hi Conor,

Thank you for the review.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 1:24 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I think most of what I wanted to talk about has been raised by Arnd or
> Geert, so I kinda only have a couple of small comments for you here.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 09:42:12PM +0100, Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> >
> > Currently, selecting which CMOs to use on a given platform is done using
> > and ALTERNATIVE_X() macro. This was manageable when there were just two
> > CMO implementations, but now that there are more and more platforms coming
> > needing custom CMOs, the use of the ALTERNATIVE_X() macro is unmanageable.
> >
> > To avoid such issues this patch switches to use of function pointers
> > instead of ALTERNATIVE_X() macro for cache management (the only drawback
> > being performance over the previous approach).
> >
> > void (*clean_range)(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
> > void (*inv_range)(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
> > void (*flush_range)(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
>
> So, given Arnd has renamed the generic helpers, should we use the
> writeback/invalidate/writeback & invalidate terminology here too?
> I think it'd be nice to make the "driver" functions match the generic
> implementations's names (even though that means not making the
> instruction naming).
>
> > The above function pointers are provided to be overridden for platforms
> > needing CMO.
> >
> > Convert ZICBOM and T-HEAD CMO to use function pointers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > ---
> > v6->v7
> > * Updated commit description
> > * Fixed build issues when CONFIG_ERRATA_THEAD_CMO=n
> > * Used static const struct ptr to register CMO ops
> > * Dropped riscv_dma_noncoherent_cmo_ops
>
> > * Moved ZICBOM CMO setup to setup.c
>
> Why'd you do that?
> What is the reason that the Zicbom stuff cannot live in
> dma-noncoherent.[ch] and only expose, say:
> void riscv_cbom_register_cmo_ops(void)
> {
> riscv_noncoherent_register_cache_ops(&zicbom_cmo_ops);
> }
> which you then call from setup.c?
>
Commit abcc445acd ("riscv: move riscv_noncoherent_supported() out of
ZICBOM probe) moved the zicbom the setup to setup.c hence I moved the
CMO stuff here. Said that, now I am defaulting to zicbom ops so I have
mode the functions to dma-noncoherent.c .

> > v5->v6
> > * New patch
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/errata/thead/errata.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/riscv/include/asm/dma-noncoherent.h | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/riscv/include/asm/errata_list.h | 53 -----------------
> > arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 49 ++++++++++++++-
> > arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c | 25 ++++++--
> > arch/riscv/mm/pmem.c | 6 +-
> > 6 files changed, 221 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/dma-noncoherent.h
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM
> > +
> > +#define ZICBOM_CMO_OP(_op, _start, _size, _cachesize) \
> > + asm volatile("mv a0, %1\n\t" \
> > + "j 2f\n\t" \
> > + "3:\n\t" \
> > + CBO_##_op(a0) \
> > + "add a0, a0, %0\n\t" \
> > + "2:\n\t" \
> > + "bltu a0, %2, 3b\n\t" \
> > + : : "r"(_cachesize), \
> > + "r"((unsigned long)(_start) & ~((_cachesize) - 1UL)), \
> > + "r"((unsigned long)(_start) + (_size)) \
> > + : "a0")
> > +
> > +static void zicbom_cmo_clean_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
> > +{
> > + ZICBOM_CMO_OP(clean, addr, size, riscv_cbom_block_size);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void zicbom_cmo_flush_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
> > +{
> > + ZICBOM_CMO_OP(flush, addr, size, riscv_cbom_block_size);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void zicbom_cmo_inval_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
> > +{
> > + ZICBOM_CMO_OP(inval, addr, size, riscv_cbom_block_size);
> > +}
> > +
> > +const struct riscv_cache_ops zicbom_cmo_ops = {
> > + .clean_range = &zicbom_cmo_clean_range,
> > + .inv_range = &zicbom_cmo_inval_range,
> > + .flush_range = &zicbom_cmo_flush_range,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void zicbom_register_cmo_ops(void)
> > +{
> > + riscv_noncoherent_register_cache_ops(&zicbom_cmo_ops);
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static void zicbom_register_cmo_ops(void) {}
> > +#endif
>
> I think all of the above should be prefixed with riscv_cbom to match the
> other riscv_cbom stuff we already have.
Just to clarify, the riscv_cbom prefix should just be applied to the
ZICOM functions and not to T-HEAD?

Cheers,
Prabhakar