lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] staging: vc04_services: Remove cache-line-size property.
From
Date
Hi Eric,

On 06/03/2018 19:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>>
>> Am 05.03.2018 um 21:28 schrieb Eric Anholt:
>>> This was just a way for the DT-passed value to get out of sync with
>>> what Linux has configured the ARM for.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
>>> ---
>>> .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c | 25 +++++++---------------
>>> .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_pagelist.h | 1 -
>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c
>>> index b59ef14890aa..e0e01c812036 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c
>>> @@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ struct vchiq_pagelist_info {
>>> };
>>>
>>> static void __iomem *g_regs;
>>> -static unsigned int g_cache_line_size = sizeof(CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
>>> static unsigned int g_fragments_size;
>>> static char *g_fragments_base;
>>> static char *g_free_fragments;
>>> @@ -117,15 +116,7 @@ int vchiq_platform_init(struct platform_device *pdev, VCHIQ_STATE_T *state)
>>> if (err < 0)
>>> return err;
>>>
>>> - err = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "cache-line-size",
>>> - &g_cache_line_size);
>>> -
>>> - if (err) {
>>> - dev_err(dev, "Missing cache-line-size property\n");
>>> - return -ENODEV;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - g_fragments_size = 2 * g_cache_line_size;
>>> + g_fragments_size = 2 * cache_line_size();
>>>
>>> /* Allocate space for the channels in coherent memory */
>>> slot_mem_size = PAGE_ALIGN(TOTAL_SLOTS * VCHIQ_SLOT_SIZE);
>>> @@ -548,9 +539,9 @@ create_pagelist(char __user *buf, size_t count, unsigned short type)
>>>
>>> /* Partial cache lines (fragments) require special measures */
>>> if ((type == PAGELIST_READ) &&
>>> - ((pagelist->offset & (g_cache_line_size - 1)) ||
>>> + ((pagelist->offset & (cache_line_size() - 1)) ||
>>> ((pagelist->offset + pagelist->length) &
>>> - (g_cache_line_size - 1)))) {
>>> + (cache_line_size() - 1)))) {
>>> char *fragments;
>>>
>>> if (down_interruptible(&g_free_fragments_sema) != 0) {
>>> @@ -598,10 +589,10 @@ free_pagelist(struct vchiq_pagelist_info *pagelistinfo,
>>> g_fragments_size;
>>> int head_bytes, tail_bytes;
>>>
>>> - head_bytes = (g_cache_line_size - pagelist->offset) &
>>> - (g_cache_line_size - 1);
>>> + head_bytes = (cache_line_size() - pagelist->offset) &
>>> + (cache_line_size() - 1);
>>> tail_bytes = (pagelist->offset + actual) &
>>> - (g_cache_line_size - 1);
>>> + (cache_line_size() - 1);
>>
>> should it be so easy? Back in 2016 we said that cache_line_size() won't
>> work. I always thought that we need the cache line size of L2 not of the
>> L1 one.
>>
>> Did you already test the behavior for these combinations?
>> BCM2835 ARM32, expected cache line size = 32
>> BCM2836 ARM32, expected cache line size = 64
>> BCM2837 ARM32, expected cache line size = 64
>> BCM2837 ARM64, expected cache line size = 64
>
> I didn't explicitly test, but was going by:
>
> config ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT_6
> bool
> default y if CPU_V7
> help
> Setting ARM L1 cache line size to 64 Bytes.
>
> config ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT_7
> bool
> help
> Setting ARM L1 cache line size to 128 Bytes.
>
> config ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT
> int
> default 7 if ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT_7
> default 6 if ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT_6
> default 5
>
> and only L1_CACHE_SHIFT_7 gets selected by UNIPHIER and neither one is
> accessible by menus.
>
> I think you're technically correct that it's the size of L2 that matters
> (or, specifically, the hardcoded value that the firmware is using on its
> side for the fragments list handling. It overrides a cache-line-size DT
> property with that number if present). However, I think L1==L2 cache
> line size this should be a safe assumption for us.
>
> Phil, any opinion?

It is the L2 cache line size that matters, but as long as you end up with
the numbers Stefan mentioned - 32 on BCM2835, 64 on BCM2836 and BCM2837 -
I'm not too bothered how you get there.

Phil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-07 09:10    [W:0.062 / U:1.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site