On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki
<macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is no reliable way to tell R4000/R4400 SC and MC variations apart,
> however simple heuristic should give good results. Only the MC version
> supports coherent caching so we can rely on such a mode having been set
> for KSEG0 by the power-on firmware to reliably indicate an MC processor.
> SC processors reportedly hang on coherent cached memory accesses and Linux
> is linked to a cached load address so the firmware has to use the correct
> caching mode to download the kernel image in a cached mode successfully.
>
> OTOH if the firmware chooses to use either the non-coherent cached or the
> uncached mode for KSEG0 on an MC processor, then the SC variant will be
> reported, just as we currently do, so no regression here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Ralf,
>
> I believe we discussed this once long ago and you had some concerns about
> such an approach although I don't recall exactly what they were. I
> maintain that this heuristic is reasonable, has no drawbacks and has a
> potential to make some optimisations or errata workarounds easier. Also
> we can collect data about systems affected to see what their firmware does
> -- R4000SC/R4400SC DECstations definitely get CP0.Config.K0 right.
>
> Maciej
>
> linux-mips-r4k-mc.patch
> Index: linux/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> +++ linux/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> @@ -362,13 +362,33 @@ static inline void cpu_probe_legacy(stru
> __cpu_name[cpu] = "R4000PC";
> }
> } else {
> + int cca = read_c0_config() & CONF_CM_CMASK;
> + int mc;
> +
> + /*
> + * SC and MC versions can't be reliably told apart,
> + * but only the latter support coherent caching
> + * modes so assume the firmware has set the KSEG0
> + * coherency attribute reasonably (if uncached, we
> + * assume SC).
> + */
> + switch (cca) {
> + case CONF_CM_CACHABLE_CE:
> + case CONF_CM_CACHABLE_COW:
> + case CONF_CM_CACHABLE_CUW:
> + mc = 1;
> + break;
> + default:
> + mc = 0;
> + break;
> + }
> if ((c->processor_id & PRID_REV_MASK) >=
> PRID_REV_R4400) {
> - c->cputype = CPU_R4400SC;
> - __cpu_name[cpu] = "R4400SC";
> + c->cputype = mc ? CPU_R4400MC : CPU_R4400SC;
> + __cpu_name[cpu] = mc ? "R4400MC" : "R4400SC";
> } else {
> - c->cputype = CPU_R4000SC;
> - __cpu_name[cpu] = "R4000SC";
> + c->cputype = mc ? CPU_R4000MC : CPU_R4000SC;
> + __cpu_name[cpu] = mc ? "R4400SC" : "R4000SC";
I guess the first one should be "R4000MC", not "R4400SC".
Regards
Jonas
