Re: [PATCH v11 2/9] ARM: l2c: use l2c_write_sec() for restoring latency and filter regs

Marek Szyprowski
2015-01-07T10:48:08Z

Hello,

On 2015-01-05 18:20, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 13:19-20150105, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> All four register for latency and filter settings cannot be written in
>> non-secure mode and they should go through l2c_write_sec(). More on this
>> can be found in CoreLink Level 2 Cache Controller L2C-310 Technical
>> Reference Manual, 3.2. Register summary, table 3.1. This have been checked
>> the TRM for r3p3, but it should be uniform for all revisions.
>>
>> Reported-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
>> Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> index 5e65ca8dea62..0aeeaa95c42d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> @@ -623,14 +623,14 @@ static void l2c310_resume(void)
>> unsigned revision;
>>
>> /* restore pl310 setup */
>> - writel_relaxed(l2x0_saved_regs.tag_latency,
>> - base + L310_TAG_LATENCY_CTRL);
>> - writel_relaxed(l2x0_saved_regs.data_latency,
>> - base + L310_DATA_LATENCY_CTRL);
>> - writel_relaxed(l2x0_saved_regs.filter_end,
>> - base + L310_ADDR_FILTER_END);
>> - writel_relaxed(l2x0_saved_regs.filter_start,
>> - base + L310_ADDR_FILTER_START);
>> + l2c_write_sec(l2x0_saved_regs.tag_latency, base,
>> + L310_TAG_LATENCY_CTRL);
>> + l2c_write_sec(l2x0_saved_regs.data_latency, base,
>> + L310_DATA_LATENCY_CTRL);
>> + l2c_write_sec(l2x0_saved_regs.filter_end, base,
>> + L310_ADDR_FILTER_END);
>> + l2c_write_sec(l2x0_saved_regs.filter_start, base,
>> + L310_ADDR_FILTER_START);
>>
>> revision = readl_relaxed(base + L2X0_CACHE_ID) &
>> L2X0_CACHE_ID_RTL_MASK;
> Do you need the following as well at this point in the patch series?
> Agreed that the writes will disappear later in the series.

Right. Thanks for pointing this. I will send an updated version, which
will also fix the checkpatch --strict issues.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> index 0aeeaa9..7afab37 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> @@ -1135,28 +1135,28 @@ static void __init l2c310_of_parse(const struct device_node *np,
>
> of_property_read_u32_array(np, "arm,tag-latency", tag, ARRAY_SIZE(tag));
> if (tag[0] && tag[1] && tag[2])
> - writel_relaxed(
> + l2c_write_sec(
> L310_LATENCY_CTRL_RD(tag[0] - 1) |
> L310_LATENCY_CTRL_WR(tag[1] - 1) |
> L310_LATENCY_CTRL_SETUP(tag[2] - 1),
> - l2x0_base + L310_TAG_LATENCY_CTRL);
> + l2x0_base, L310_TAG_LATENCY_CTRL);
>
> of_property_read_u32_array(np, "arm,data-latency",
> data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
> if (data[0] && data[1] && data[2])
> - writel_relaxed(
> + l2c_write_sec(
> L310_LATENCY_CTRL_RD(data[0] - 1) |
> L310_LATENCY_CTRL_WR(data[1] - 1) |
> L310_LATENCY_CTRL_SETUP(data[2] - 1),
> - l2x0_base + L310_DATA_LATENCY_CTRL);
> + l2x0_base, L310_DATA_LATENCY_CTRL);
>
> of_property_read_u32_array(np, "arm,filter-ranges",
> filter, ARRAY_SIZE(filter));
> if (filter[1]) {
> - writel_relaxed(ALIGN(filter[0] + filter[1], SZ_1M),
> - l2x0_base + L310_ADDR_FILTER_END);
> - writel_relaxed((filter[0] & ~(SZ_1M - 1)) | L310_ADDR_FILTER_EN,
> - l2x0_base + L310_ADDR_FILTER_START);
> + l2c_write_sec(ALIGN(filter[0] + filter[1], SZ_1M),
> + l2x0_base, L310_ADDR_FILTER_END);
> + l2c_write_sec((filter[0] & ~(SZ_1M - 1)) | L310_ADDR_FILTER_EN,
> + l2x0_base, L310_ADDR_FILTER_START);
> }
>
> ret = l2x0_cache_size_of_parse(np, aux_val, aux_mask, &assoc, SZ_512K);
>

Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland