[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM926ejs: Add routines to invalidate D-Cache

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>]

On Monday, August 08, 2011 10:01:19 AM Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Hong Xu,
> 
> Le 08/08/2011 05:20, Hong Xu a ?crit :
> > After DMA operation, we need to maintain D-Cache coherency.
> > So that the DCache must be invalidated (hence CPU will fetch
> > data written by DMA controller from RAM).
> > 
> > Tested on AT91SAM9261EK with Peripheral DMA controller.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hong Xu<hong.xu@atmel.com>
> > Tested-by: Elen Song<elen.song@atmel.com>
> > CC: Albert Aribaud<albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
> > CC: Aneesh V<aneesh@ti.com>
> > CC: Reinhard Meyer<u-boot@emk-elektronik.de>
> > CC: Heiko Schocher<hs@denx.de>
> > ---
> > 
> > V2:
> >    Per Albert's suggestion, add invalidate_dcache_range
> > 
> > V3:
> >    invalidate_dcache_range emits warning when detecting unaligned buffer
> >    
> >    invalidate_dcache_range won't clean any adjacent cache line when
> >    detecting unaligned buffer and only round up/down the buffer address
> > 
> > +	mva = start;
> > +	if ((mva&  (cache_line_len - 1)) != 0) {
> > +		printf("WARNING: %s - unaligned buffer detected, starting "
> 
> I'd rather have a message about "cache", not "buffer", e.g.
> 
>    printf("WARNING: %s - start address %x is not aligned\n"
>      __FUNCTION__, start);

__func__ is prefered in linux kernel :-)
> 
> > +		mva&= ~(cache_line_len - 1);
> > +	}
> > +	if ((stop&  (cache_line_len - 1)) != 0) {
> > +		printf("WARNING: %s - unaligned buffer detected, ending "
> > +			"address: 0x%08x\n", __FUNCTION__, stop);
> 
> Ditto.

Ditto.

> 
> > +		stop = (stop | (cache_line_len - 1)) + 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	while (mva<  stop) {
> > +		asm("mcr p15, 0, %0, c7, c6, 1" : : "r"(mva));
> > +		mva += cache_line_len;
> > +	}
> 
> Thinking more about the degenerate case -- why not round *up* the start
> address, and round *down* the stop address, that is, *reduce* the area
> to the aligned portion rather than *expand* it into the unknown? That
> would make data in "partially owned" cache lines safe from unwanted
> invalidation. OTOH, it would not completely invalidate the caller's
> data, but at least the malfunction would appear in the faulty calling
> code, not elsewhere.

That'd introduce even stranger behaviour and it'd be even more sickening to 
debug
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Amicalement,