On 13.12.2024 9:42 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 05:32:24PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Do so in accordance with the internal recommendations.
>
> Your commit message is still incomplete as it does not really say
> anything about what this patch does, why this is needed or what the
> implications are if not merging this patch.
I'm not sure I can say much more here..
> How would one determine that this patch is a valid candidate for
> backporting, for example.
"suboptimal hw presets"
>
>> Fixes: b3cf69a43502 ("soc: qcom: llcc: Add configuration data for X1E80100")
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Reviewed-by: Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Cc stable
>> - Add more context lines
>> - Pick up r-b
>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241207-topic-llcc_x1e_wrcache-v1-1-232e6aff49e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>> index 32c3bc887cefb87c296e3ba67a730c87fa2fa346..1560db00a01248197e5c2936e785a5ea77f74ad8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>> @@ -2997,20 +2997,21 @@ static const struct llcc_slice_config x1e80100_data[] = {
>> .bonus_ways = 0xfff,
>> .cache_mode = 0,
>> }, {
>> .usecase_id = LLCC_WRCACHE,
>> .slice_id = 31,
>> .max_cap = 1024,
>> .priority = 1,
>> .fixed_size = true,
>> .bonus_ways = 0xfff,
>> .cache_mode = 0,
>> + .activate_on_init = true,
>
> If this is so obviously correct, why isn't this flag set for
> LLCC_WRCACHE for all the SoCs?
The other SoCs where it's disabled (8180 and 8150) have it in line
with the recommendations.
Konrad
