Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: renesas: r8a7795: Add L2 cache-controller nodes
From: Sudeep Holla <hidden>
Date: 2015-12-08 18:58:50
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-pm, linux-sh
On 08/12/15 18:50, Dirk Behme wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On 07.12.2015 20:03, Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 06:49:43PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:quoted
On 07/12/15 18:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:quoted
+ L2_CA57: cache-controller@0 { + compatible = "cache"; + arm,data-latency = <4 4 1>; + arm,tag-latency = <3 3 3>;Interesting, only PL2xx/3xx cache controller driver reads this from the DT and configures the controller. The integrated L2 found in A15/A7/A57/A53 needs doesn't make use of these values from the DT.These properties seem to be from l2cc.txt, which really only corresponds to PL210/PL220/PL310 (and variants) and isn't as generic as it sounds. I don't see that these are necessary at all.What's about a documentation patch like [1], then? For what is the arm64 dts entry cpu@0 { ... next-level-cache = <&L2_0>; }; L2_0: l2-cache0 { compatible = "cache"; }; good for at all, then? Best regards Dirk [1]diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txtb/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt index 06c88a4..f687aed 100644--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt@@ -1,12 +1,18 @@ * ARM L2 Cache Controller -ARM cores often have a separate level 2 cache controller. There arevarious +ARM 32-bit cores often have a separate level 2 cache controller. There are various implementations of the L2 cache controller with compatible programming models. Some of the properties that are just prefixed "cache-*" are taken from section 3.7.3 of the ePAPR v1.1 specification which can be found at: https://www.power.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.1.pdf -The ARM L2 cache representation in the device tree should be done as follows: +ARM 64-bit cores (e.g. A15/A7/A57/A53) have an integrated level 2 cache which
A15 and A7 are 32-bit cores, so you can't generalize it. IMO you can just specify that this binding is applicable for separate L2 cache controllers. -- -- Regards, Sudeep