Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging: vc04_services: Remove cache-line-size property.

[Phil Elwell <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

On 06/03/2018 19:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    .../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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html