From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933272AbeBVQ2J (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:28:09 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44558 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932942AbeBVQ2H (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:28:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: Add support for new control bits CTR_EL0.DIC
 and CTR_EL0.IDC
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Philip Elcan <pelcan@codeaurora.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvmarm <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
References: <1519311090-19998-1-git-send-email-shankerd@codeaurora.org>
 <20180222152244.zozx2tlptgnnfu6b@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <32c8cfd3-2883-177b-7736-1bb6ab679df4@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:28:03 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180222152244.zozx2tlptgnnfu6b@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

[Apologies to keep elbowing in, and if I'm being thick here...]

On 22/02/18 15:22, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 08:51:30AM -0600, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
>> +#define CTR_B31_SHIFT		31
> 
> Since this is just a RES1 bit, I think we don't need a mnemonic for it,
> but I'll defer to Will and Catalin on that.
> 
>>   ENTRY(invalidate_icache_range)
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SKIP_CACHE_POU
>> +alternative_if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC
>> +	mov	x0, xzr
>> +	dsb	ishst
>> +	isb
>> +	ret
>> +alternative_else_nop_endif
>> +#endif
> 
> As commented on v3, I don't believe you need the DSB here. If prior
> stores haven't been completed at this point, the existing implementation
> would not work correctly here.

True in terms of ordering between stores prior to entry and the IC IVAU 
itself, but what about the DSH ISH currently issued *after* the IC IVAU 
before returning? Is provably impossible that existing callers might be 
relying on that ordering *anything*, or would we risk losing something 
subtle by effectively removing it?

Robin.