On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:59:10PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote: > The original intent in cacheinfo was that an architecture > specific populate_cache_leaves() would probe the hardware > and then cache_shared_cpu_map_setup() and > cache_override_properties() would provide firmware help to > extend/expand upon what was probed. Arm64 was really > the only architecture that was working this way, and > with the removal of most of the hardware probing logic it > became clear that it was possible to simplify the logic a bit. > > This patch combines the walk of the DT nodes with the > code updating the cache size/line_size and nr_sets. > cache_override_properties() (which was DT specific) is > then removed. The result is that cacheinfo.of_node is > no longer used as a temporary place to hold DT references > for future calls that update cache properties. That change > helps to clarify its one remaining use (matching > cacheinfo nodes that represent shared caches) which > will be used by the ACPI/PPTT code in the following patches. > > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Albert Ou <albert@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> > --- > arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 1 + > drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > index 10ed2749e246..6f4500233cf8 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, > CACHE_WRITE_BACK > | CACHE_READ_ALLOCATE > | CACHE_WRITE_ALLOCATE; > + cache_of_set_props(this_leaf, node); This may be necessary but can it be done as later patch ? So far nothing is added that may break riscv IIUC. Palmer, Albert, Can you confirm ? Also, as I see we can thin down arch specific implementation on riscv if it's just using DT like ARM64. Sorry if I am missing to see something, so thought of checking. [...] > diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h > index 3d9805297cda..d35299a590a4 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h > +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h > @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ int func(unsigned int cpu) \ > struct cpu_cacheinfo *get_cpu_cacheinfo(unsigned int cpu); > int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu); > int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu); > +void cache_of_set_props(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np); > IIUC riscv is the only user for this outside of cacheinfo.c, right ? Hopefully we can get rid of it. Other than that, it looks OK. I will wait for response from riscv team do that these riscv related changes can be dropped or move to later patch if really needed. -- Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
