On 27 Mar 2023, at 13:13, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > No other architecture intentionally writes back dirty cache lines into > a buffer that a device has just finished writing into. If the cache is > clean, this has no effect at all, but if a cacheline in the buffer has > actually been written by the CPU, there is a drive bug that is likely > made worse by overwriting that buffer. FYI [1] proposed this same change a while ago but its justification was flawed (which was my objection at the time, not the diff itself). Jess [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220818165105.99746-1-s.miroshnichenko@xxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c b/arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c > index d919efab6eba..640f4c496d26 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ void arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size, > break; > case DMA_FROM_DEVICE: > case DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL: > - ALT_CMO_OP(flush, vaddr, size, riscv_cbom_block_size); > + ALT_CMO_OP(inval, vaddr, size, riscv_cbom_block_size); > break; > default: > break; > -- > 2.39.2 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-riscv mailing list > linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
