From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2981CF8A; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713297840; cv=none; b=Jn+C8bmR2o3PN6BO/xXMu8IwVhIDCTQ2BMbqAfrpT0knFAEFMFUf/eJTqayYaBpApjsiBJFRKQ5Mtnd9U1Y3FohiZ00oAVlUPy1bZoSqB7F4nADGugMhrvZhoQD7rcR49TNQGYCJa3fkuSQFFqj8aKtxNP5q4z/WVVFj/kNl/Ww= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713297840; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5qLLMccxABZD/LLYQ5sprUAdT2RZypurlvipvjwR8nM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Dbkd8WGIi/u+UA2ywaoi/K4iR4GNkO9Gk6yZycTZ8ysUtriI9lXfuy1koGr/+SD4/hwkTavucahpeQkpXWWAte790A+jXFPzweohhZPYJRojw+8mE05Yr86fGv1PFGrUA3sl4q9ttZmnYNVQGy7y9MvctPZhHWSSifAOLijOy/g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE32339; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.58] (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 244383F738; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9f36bedd-1a68-43a9-826d-ce56caf01c52@arm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:03:52 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] riscv: cacheinfo: initialize cacheinfo's level and type from ACPI PPTT Content-Language: en-US To: Yunhui Cui , rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, bhelgaas@google.com, james.morse@arm.com, jhugo@codeaurora.org, john.garry@huawei.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, pierre.gondois@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, tiantao6@huawei.com References: <20240416031438.7637-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> <20240416031438.7637-2-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> From: Jeremy Linton In-Reply-To: <20240416031438.7637-2-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 4/15/24 22:14, Yunhui Cui wrote: > Before cacheinfo can be built correctly, we need to initialize level > and type. Since RSIC-V currently does not have a register group that > describes cache-related attributes like ARM64, we cannot obtain them > directly, so now we obtain cache leaves from the ACPI PPTT table > (acpi_get_cache_info()) and set the cache type through split_levels. > > Suggested-by: Jeremy Linton > Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla > Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui > --- > arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > index 30a6878287ad..dc5fb70362f1 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > static struct riscv_cacheinfo_ops *rv_cache_ops; > > @@ -78,6 +79,25 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) > struct device_node *prev = NULL; > int levels = 1, level = 1; > > + if (!acpi_disabled) { > + int ret, idx, fw_levels, split_levels; > + > + ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &fw_levels, &split_levels); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (idx = 0; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels && > + idx < this_cpu_ci->num_leaves; idx++, level++) { AFAIK the purpose of idx here it to assure that the number of cache leaves is not overflowing. But right below we are utilizing two of them at once, so this check isn't correct. OTOH, since its allocated as levels + split_levels I don't think its actually possible for this to cause a problem. Might be worthwhile to just hoist it before the loop and revalidate the total leaves about to be utilized. > + if (level <= split_levels) { > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); > + } else { > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > + } > + } > + return 0; > + } > + > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size")) > ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size"))