Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-26-02 at 00:04:47 UTC, Dave Olson wrote:
> > @@ -324,14 +335,33 @@ static bool cache_node_is_unified(const struct
> > device_node *np)
> > return of_get_property(np, "cache-unified", NULL);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Handle unified caches that have two different types of tags. Most
> > embedded
> > + * use cache-size, etc. for the unified cache size, but open firmware
> > systems
> > + * use d-cache-size, etc. Since they all appear to be consistent, check
> > on
> > + * initialization for which type we are, and use the appropriate structure.
> > + */
> > static struct cache *cache_do_one_devnode_unified(struct device_node *node,
> > int level)
> > {
> > struct cache *cache;
> > + int ucache;
> >
> > pr_debug("creating L%d ucache for %s\n", level, node->full_name);
> >
> > cache = new_cache(CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level, node);
> ^^
>
> > + if (of_get_property(node,
> > + cache_type_info[CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED_D].size_prop, NULL)) {
> > + ucache = CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED_D;
> > + } else {
> > + ucache = CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED; /* assume embedded */
> > + if (of_get_property(node,
> > + cache_type_info[CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED].size_prop, NULL) ==
> > + NULL)
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "Unified cache property missing\n");
> > + }
> > +
> > + cache = new_cache(ucache, level, node);
> ^^
> >
> > return cache;
> > }
>
> That looks fishy. You create a cache, and then throw it away and create
> another
> one and return that. I don't think that's what you intended, is it?
It looks like I missed something when I regenerated the patch, yes.
My version of cacheinfo.c doesn't have the first new_cache() call.
> It would also be cleaner I think if you created another helper, eg.
> cache_is_unified_d() to do the property lookup.
OK.
> And also I don't think you need to do the second property lookup, especially
> if
> all you're going to do is print a warning.
I wanted to make sure that if a similar issue arose in the future, that
a message was printed so it got caught and fixed. I don't see a way
to do that without the 2nd lookup.
Let me know what you think, and I'll generate another patch.
Dave Olson
ol...@cumulusnetworks.com
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
