Scott Wood [off-list ref] wrote on 2011/01/13 21:44:00:
quoted
BTW, it occurred to me that the following 8xx quirk is best
done in 8xx code:
From c1985a3b8b16d96ddce5ef90d5a15e70fb8a2aec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joakim Tjernlund <redacted>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:24:22 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] 8xx: Move invalidation of non present TLBs
8xx does not invalidate ~PRESENT TLBs, move the workaround
in mm/fault.c here to keep 8xx quirks localized.
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <redacted>
---
arch/ppc/kernel/head_8xx.S | 12 ++++++++++--
arch/ppc/mm/fault.c | 7 -------
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/ppc/kernel/head_8xx.S b/arch/ppc/kernel/head_8xx.S
index 75acaa0..24b206c 100644
--- a/arch/ppc/kernel/head_8xx.S
+++ b/arch/ppc/kernel/head_8xx.S
@@ -221,7 +221,11 @@ DataAccess:
mr r5,r20
mfspr r4,DAR
stw r4,_DAR(r21)
- li r20,0x00f0
+ /* invalidate ~PRESENT TLBs, 8xx MMU don't do this */
+ andis. r20,r5,0x4000
+ beq+ 1f
+ tlbie r4
+1: li r20,0x00f
mtspr DAR,r20 /* Tag DAR */
addi r3,r1,STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD
li r20,MSR_KERNEL@@ -238,7 +242,11 @@ InstructionAccess:
addi r3,r1,STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD
mr r4,r22
mr r5,r23
- li r20,MSR_KERNEL
+ /* invalidate ~PRESENT TLBs, 8xx MMU don't do this */
+ andis. r20,r5,0x4000
+ beq+ 1f
+ tlbie r4
+1: li r20,MSR_KERNEL
rlwimi r20,r23,0,16,16 /* copy EE bit from saved MSR */
FINISH_EXCEPTION(do_page_fault)
diff --git a/arch/ppc/mm/fault.c b/arch/ppc/mm/fault.c
index 874005a..8819fb1 100644
--- a/arch/ppc/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/ppc/mm/fault.c
@@ -116,13 +116,6 @@ void do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long address,
else
is_write = error_code & 0x02000000;
#endif /* CONFIG_4xx || CONFIG_BOOKE */
-#if defined(CONFIG_8xx)
- /* 8xx does no invalidate TLBs that are ~PRESENT,
- * do it here.
- */
- if (error_code & 0x40000000)
- _tlbie(address);
-#endif
#if defined(CONFIG_XMON) || defined(CONFIG_KGDB)
if (debugger_fault_handler && regs->trap == 0x300) {
debugger_fault_handler(regs);
--1.7.3.4
Scott, what do you think of this? Is it safe to call tlbie in this context?
I'd guess so (I assume the concern is MMU translation being off?), but I
don't have any particular knowledge about this. I'd be checking the
same manual that you have. :-)
I noticed 2.6 uses tlbie in CPU15 errata workaround so it is fine
and it is better to invalidate as soon as possible to free up a TLB slot.
Runs on my old 2.4 too.
Jocke