On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:18:04 +0000,
Lorenzo Pieralisi [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 12:00:38PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

[...]

quoted

@@ -2380,6 +2385,10 @@ gic_acpi_parse_madt_gicc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	gic_request_region(gicc->gicr_base_address, size, "GICR");
 
+	if (gic_acpi_non_coherent_flag(gicc->flags,
+				       ACPI_MADT_GICC_NON_COHERENT))
+		gic_data.rdists.flags |= RDIST_FLAGS_FORCE_NON_SHAREABLE;
+

Quick question before reposting it. We run this function for
every GICC entry, I didn't add a check to make sure all GICC
entries have the same flag value, please let me know if that's
OK.

I don't think there is a point in keeping a live variable across
calls to set the flag once for all either.

I don't think that's useful. Once we see the flag being set, we'll
enforce the non-coherency. If it wasn't set before, it's because it
wasn't necessary.

If one day we find a firmware that only randomly exposes the flag,
we'll treat it as a quirk.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel