[PATCH RFC V2 1/2] arm64: Add enable/disable d-cache support for purgatory

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On 01/12/2016 06:53 PM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> Hi Akashi,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On 12/01/2016:05:34:41 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> +	default:
>>> +		return 32;
>>
>> AA64MMFR0_PRANGE_32, instead of 'default', should explicitly be used here
>> as it is defined as 0x0 in ARM ARM.
>
> OK.
>
>>
>>> +static void init_page_table(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	inval_cache_range((uint64_t)page_table,
>>> +				(uint64_t)page_table + PAGE_TABLE_SIZE);
>>> +	memset(page_table, 0, PAGE_TABLE_SIZE);
>>
>> why invalidate first?
>
> Humm..may be you are right. It was copied from arch/arm64/kernel/head.S.
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S#L322
>
>>
>>> + */
>>> +static void create_identity_mapping(uint64_t start, uint64_t end,
>>> +					uint64_t flags)
>>> +{
>>> +	uint32_t sec_shift, pgdir_shift, sec_mask;
>>> +	uint64_t desc, s1, e1, s2, e2;
>>> +	uint64_t *table2;
>>> +
>>> +	s1 = start;
>>> +	e1 = end;
>>> +
>>> +	sec_shift = get_section_shift();
>>> +	if (pgtable_level == 1) {
>>> +		s1 >>= sec_shift;
>>> +		e1 >>= sec_shift;
>>> +		do {
>>> +			desc = s1 << sec_shift;
>>> +			desc |= flags;
>>> +			page_table[s1] = desc;
>>> +			s1++;
>>> +		} while (s1 <= e1);
>>
>> To be precise, this loop creates an unnecessary entry
>> if 'end' is exclusive. Pls think about the case that end is
>> on sector boundary. Maybe,
>>      e1 = (e1 - 1) >> sec_shift
>
> Correct.
>
>>
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		pgdir_shift = get_pgdir_shift();
>>> +		sec_mask = get_section_mask();
>>> +		s1 >>= pgdir_shift;
>>> +		e1 >>= pgdir_shift;
>>> +		do {
>>> +			/*
>>> +			 * If there is no table entry then write a new
>>> +			 * entry else, use old entry
>>> +			 */
>>> +			if (!page_table[s1]) {
>>
>> s1 can be larger than 0, 1 or 2 if ram is located at much higher address
>> than the first (three) sector(s).
>
> Yes, that can most likely be, but code will take care.
>  From page_table[0] to page_table[MAX_PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t)] will have entries
> for 1st table.
>
> we can have at max three tables.
>
> table1 points to &page_table[0]
> table2 points to &page_table[ MAX_PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t)]
> table3 points to &page_table[ 2 * MAX_PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t)]
>
> each table can contain number of entries = MAX_PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t), so
> if s1  > 3, it should work fine.

OK. I mistakenly recognized that page_table was something like
     uint64_t page_table[3][MAX_PAGE_SIZE/sizeof(uint64_t)]

-Takahiro AKASHI

>>
>>> +static void enable_mmu_dcache(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	uint64_t tcr_flags = TCR_FLAGS | TCR_T0SZ(va_bits);
>>> +
>>> +	switch(page_shift) {
>>> +	case 16:
>>> +		tcr_flags |= TCR_TG0_64K;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 12:
>>> +		tcr_flags |= TCR_TG0_4K;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	default:
>>> +		printf("page shift not supported\n");
>>> +		return;
>>> +	}
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Since the page tables have been populated with non-cacheable
>>> +	 * accesses (MMU disabled), invalidate the idmap page
>>> +	 * tables again to remove any speculatively loaded cache lines.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	inval_cache_range((uint64_t)page_table,
>>> +				(uint64_t)page_table + PAGE_TABLE_SIZE);
>>> +
>>> +	switch(get_current_el()) {
>>> +	case 3:
>>
>> Linux kernel should be started only in EL2 or non-secure EL1.
>> why should we take care of el3?
>
> I was not sure about it, so kept it. OK.. Will remove in next version.
>
>>
>>> +void disable_dcache(uint64_t ram_start, uint64_t ram_end)
>>> +{
>>> +	switch(get_current_el()) {
>>> +	case 3:
>>> +		reset_sctlr_el3();
>>> +		break;
>>
>> ditto
>
> OK.
>
>>
>>> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_40		0x2
>>> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_36		0x1
>>> +#define ID_AA64MMFR0_PARANGE_32		0x0
>>> +
>>> +#define TCR_TG0_64K 		(1UL << 14)
>>> +#define TCR_TG0_4K 		(0UL << 14)
>>> +#define TCR_SHARED_NONE		(0UL << 12)
>>> +#define TCR_ORGN_WBWA		(1UL << 10)
>>> +#define TCR_IRGN_WBWA		(1UL << 8)
>>> +#define TCR_IPS_EL1_SHIFT	32
>>> +#define TCR_IPS_EL2_SHIFT	16
>>> +#define TCR_IPS_EL3_SHIFT	16
>>
>> TCR_PS_EL[23]_SHIFT?
>
> OK :-) , Did not noticed it earlier.
>
> ~Pratyush
>