On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 10:52:03PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2022, 18:46:21 CET schrieb Jisheng Zhang: > > It's a bit weird to call riscv_noncoherent_supported() each time when > > insmoding a module. Move the calling out of feature patch func. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 - > > arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c > > index c743f0adc794..364d1fe86bea 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c > > @@ -274,7 +274,6 @@ static bool __init_or_module cpufeature_probe_zicbom(unsigned int stage) > > if (!riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZICBOM)) > > return false; > > > > - riscv_noncoherent_supported(); > > return true; > > } > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c > > index 86acd690d529..6eea40bf8c6b 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -300,6 +300,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) > > riscv_init_cbom_blocksize(); > > riscv_fill_hwcap(); > > apply_boot_alternatives(); > > + if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZICBOM)) > > + riscv_noncoherent_supported(); > > hmm, this changes the behaviour slightly. In the probe function there > is the > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM)) > return false; > at the top, so with this change the second WARN_TAINT in arch_setup_dma_ops > will behave differently thanks for the information. below code can keep the behavior: if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM) && riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZICBOM)) riscv_noncoherent_supported(); will wait for one more day for more review comments, then will send out a v3 > > Heiko > > >
