Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] soc: renesas: Add L2 cache management for RZ/Five SoC

Palmer Dabbelt
2022-12-15T21:40:48Z

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:17:38 PST (-0800), geert@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 8:54 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:46:42PM +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:10 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
>> > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:06 PM Lad, Prabhakar
>> > > <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:36 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
>> > > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:58 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I/O Coherence Port (IOCP) provides an AXI interface for connecting
>> > > > > > external non-caching masters, such as DMA controllers. The accesses
>> > > > > > from IOCP are coherent with D-Caches and L2 Cache.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > IOCP is a specification option and is disabled on the Renesas RZ/Five
>> > > > > > SoC due to this reason IP blocks using DMA will fail.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The Andes AX45MP core has a Programmable Physical Memory Attributes (PMA)
>> > > > > > block that allows dynamic adjustment of memory attributes in the runtime.
>> > > > > > It contains a configurable amount of PMA entries implemented as CSR
>> > > > > > registers to control the attributes of memory locations in interest.
>> > > > > > Below are the memory attributes supported:
>> > > > > > * Device, Non-bufferable
>> > > > > > * Device, bufferable
>> > > > > > * Memory, Non-cacheable, Non-bufferable
>> > > > > > * Memory, Non-cacheable, Bufferable
>> > > > > > * Memory, Write-back, No-allocate
>> > > > > > * Memory, Write-back, Read-allocate
>> > > > > > * Memory, Write-back, Write-allocate
>> > > > > > * Memory, Write-back, Read and Write-allocate
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > More info about PMA (section 10.3):
>> > > > > > Link: http://www.andestech.com/wp-content/uploads/AX45MP-1C-Rev.-5.0.0-Datasheet.pdf
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > As a workaround for SoCs with IOCP disabled CMO needs to be handled by
>> > > > > > software. Firstly OpenSBI configures the memory region as
>> > > > > > "Memory, Non-cacheable, Bufferable" and passes this region as a global
>> > > > > > shared dma pool as a DT node. With DMA_GLOBAL_POOL enabled all DMA
>> > > > > > allocations happen from this region and synchronization callbacks are
>> > > > > > implemented to synchronize when doing DMA transactions.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Example PMA region passes as a DT node from OpenSBI:
>> > > > > > reserved-memory {
>> > > > > > #address-cells = <2>;
>> > > > > > #size-cells = <2>;
>> > > > > > ranges;
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > pma_resv0@58000000 {
>> > > > > > compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
>> > > > > > reg = <0x0 0x58000000 0x0 0x08000000>;
>> > > > > > no-map;
>> > > > > > linux,dma-default;
>> > > > > > };
>> > > > > > };
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for your patch!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/cacheflush.h | 8 +
>> > > > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/errata_list.h | 28 ++-
>> > > > > > drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig | 6 +
>> > > > > > drivers/soc/renesas/Makefile | 2 +
>> > > > > > drivers/soc/renesas/rzfive/Kconfig | 6 +
>> > > > > > drivers/soc/renesas/rzfive/Makefile | 3 +
>> > > > > > drivers/soc/renesas/rzfive/ax45mp_cache.c | 256 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Given this touches arch/riscv/include/asm/, I don't think the
>> > > > > code belongs under drivers/soc/renesas/.
>> > > > >
>> > > > Ok. Do you have any suggestions on where you want me to put this code?
>> > >
>> > > As it plugs into core riscv functionality, I think it should be under
>> > > arch/riscv/.
>> > > if the RISC-V maintainers object to that, another option is
>> > > drivers/soc/andestech/ or (new) drivers/cache/
>> > >
>> > RISC-V maintainers had already made it clear to not to include vendor
>> > specific stuff in the arch/riscv folder, so I'll consider putting this

We have vendor-specific behavior in arch/riscv now, and it's even in the
policies (the behavior has been there for a while, the policy is new).
There's probably a bunch of posts saying otherwise because we used to
not take vendor-specific behavior, but that's not the case any more.

>> > into drivers/cache/ folder to sync with the bindings.
>> >
>> > Conor/Palmer - do you have any objections/suggestions?
>>
>> I'm not its maintainer so sorta moot what I say, but having drivers in
>> arch/riscv makes little sense to me..

Some drivers are pretty tightly coupled to an ISA, I'm thinking of
things like interrupts/timers where we're writing CSRs. I could see how
cache controllers would fall into that category, doubly so as they get
integrated to the memory model. That leaves us in sort of a grey area
and there's certainly ports that have way more drivers in arch so it's
not an uncommon way to do things.

I generally lean pretty heavily towards keeping things that could at all
be considered out of arch/riscv and instead have them in some sort of
driver folder. That probably results in more total work to do, as we've
got to have arch/riscv interfaces with one use case and sync up between
multiple trees sometimes to get stuff merged. I think it also results
in better code: being closer to the other drivers makes us more likely
to get reviewed by folks who understand the space, and it's generally
easier to share code in the subsystems.

>> Putting stuff in drivers/cache does sound like a good idea since the
>> binding is going there too.
>>
>> The SiFive ccache driver is in drivers/soc and it was suggested to me
>> this week that there's likely going to be a second SiFive cache driver
>> at some point in the near future. Plus Microchip are going to have to
>> add cache management stuff to the existing SiFive ccache driver.
>> Having them be their own thing makes sense in my mind - especially since
>> they're not tied to SoCs sold by Andes or SiFive.
>>
>> I had a quick, and I mean *quick* look through other soc drivers to see
>> if there were any other cache controller drivers but nothing stood out
>> to me. Maybe someone else has more of a clue there. Ditto for misc, had
>> a look but nothing seemed obvious.
>
> Usually they're under arch/:
> $ git ls-files -- "arch/*cache*" | wc -l
> 148
> $ git ls-files -- "drivers/*cache*" | wc -l
> 63
>
> E.g. arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c.

Above all I like to do things as normally as possible, so if most cache
drivers are in arch then I'm OK with. Looks like we originally had it
arch/riscv, though, until 9209fb51896f ("riscv: move sifive_l2_cache.c
to drivers/soc") moved it out.

I don't really remember this history/rationale here, at the time the
SiFive cache driver wasn't really doing anything all that exciting: it
was just way enable and some statistics, we hadn't really planned on
using it for the non-coherent stuff that folks are now trying to
retrofit it to handle. That sort of thing makes it a lot more coupled
to the ISA.

Given that we already moved the SiFive one out it seems sane to just
start with the rest in drivers/soc/$VENDOR. Looks like it was
Christoph's idea to do the move, so I'm adding him in case he's got an
opinion (and also the SOC alias, as that seems generally relevant).

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert