Hi Geert,
Thank you for the review.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:31 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:42 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently, selecting which CMOs to use on a given platform is done using
> > and ALTERNATIVE_X() macro. This was manageable when there were just two
>
> the ALTERNATIVE_X()
>
OK.
> > CMO implementations, but now that there are more and more platforms coming
> > needing custom CMOs, the use of the ALTERNATIVE_X() macro is unmanageable.
> >
> > To avoid such issues this patch switches to use of function pointers
>
> "the use" or "using"
>
OK.
> > instead of ALTERNATIVE_X() macro for cache management (the only drawback
>
> the ALTERNATIVE_X()
>
OK.
> > being performance over the previous approach).
> >
> > void (*clean_range)(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
> > void (*inv_range)(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
> > void (*flush_range)(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size);
> >
> > The above function pointers are provided to be overridden for platforms
> > needing CMO.
> >
> > Convert ZICBOM and T-HEAD CMO to use function pointers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > --- a/arch/riscv/errata/thead/errata.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/errata/thead/errata.c
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ERRATA_THEAD_CMO
>
> > +static void thead_register_cmo_ops(void)
> > +{
> > + riscv_noncoherent_register_cache_ops(&thead_cmo_ops);
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static void thead_register_cmo_ops(void) {}
> > +#endif
>
> > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c
>
> > @@ -75,3 +83,12 @@ void riscv_noncoherent_supported(void)
> > "Non-coherent DMA support enabled without a block size\n");
> > noncoherent_supported = true;
> > }
> > +
> > +void riscv_noncoherent_register_cache_ops(const struct riscv_cache_ops *ops)
> > +{
> > + if (!ops)
> > + return;
>
> This is never true.
I just wanted to add a sanity check.
> I guess originally you wanted to call riscv_noncoherent_register_cache_ops()
> unconditionally from common code, instead of the various *register_cmo_ops()?
> But that would have required something like
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ERRATA_THEAD_CMO
> #define THEAD_CMO_OPS_PTR (&thead_cmo_ops)
> #else
> #define THEAD_CMO_OPS_PTR NULL
> #endif
>
riscv_noncoherent_register_cache_ops() will only be called if the
ISA/Errata needs to be applied so I'll drop this check.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
