On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:46:33PM -0700, Gandham, Raghu wrote: > > From: Kevin D. Kissell [mailto:kevink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:02 PM > > To: Gandham, Raghu > > Cc: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dearman, Chris > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] Do not rely on the initial state of TC/VPE > > bindings when doing cross VPE writes > > > > Note that, regardless of the reset state, smtc_configure_tlb() should > > have at least temporarily bound TC 1 to VPE1, which may be why this > > never seemed to be a problem on the 34K. If one wants to support > > designs with more than 2 VPEs, then this is probably one of the things > > that needs to be fixed. That having been said, rather than adding a > > usually-redundant write_vpe_c0_vpeconf0() in that clause, wouldn't it > be > > cleaner to just move the MVP setting from the top of the loop to the > > point in the loop just after the TCs have been bound to the VPE in > > question, i.e., > > > > 454 if (slop) { > > 455 if (tc != 0) { > > 456 smtc_tc_setup(vpe,tc, cpu); > > 457 cpu++; > > 458 } > > 459 printk(" %d", tc); > > 460 tc++; > > 461 slop--; > > 462 } > > > > write_vpe_c0_vpeconf0(read_vpe_c0_vpeconf0() | > > VPECONF0_MVP); > > > > 463 if (vpe != 0) { > > 464 /* > > 465 * Clear any stale software interrupts > from > > VPE's Cause > > 466 */ > > > > This should definitely be OK for a 34K, because it's being executed by > > TC0 in VPE0 and the reset state of VPE0 has MVP set. If it weren't, > > smtc_configure_tlb() would have failed. > > > > Regards, > > > > Kevin K. > > > I will resend this patch with your suggestion. Ping? Don't think I ever received that, if you sent it. Ralf
