[patch 2/2] arm: Implement l2x0 cache disable function

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 16:29 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:05 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > This function is called from kexec code before the inner caches are
> > > > disabled to prevent random crashes in the new kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>
> > > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> > > > +++ linux-2.6/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> > > > @@ -206,6 +206,12 @@ static void l2x0_flush_range(unsigned lo
> > > >         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l2x0_lock, flags);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static void l2x0_cache_disable(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       l2x0_inv_all();
> > > > +       writel(0, l2x0_base + L2X0_CTRL);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Even if we go this route, we need an l2x0_flush_all() rather than
> > > invalidate here as the latter removes dirty cache lines without evicting
> > > them first.
> > 
> > True, but that's an implementation detail. What's more important is to
> > make a decision how to solve the problem as kexec is completely
> > unusable for all L2 systems right now.
> 
> My view is that we should try to find why cache flushing doesn't work
> but unfortunately I don't have any spare time to look into this (would
> need to use tools like ICE debugging/tracing).

Simply because you need to flush the cache in the decompressor of the
new kernel before jumping into it and I doubt that Russell will be
happy about adding an utter L2 mess to the decompressor.

> > I think the correct way to deal with this is disabling L2 and let the
> > OMAP3 folks deal with it. As Tony said there is some SMI magic to do
> > that, so we can do the following:
> > 
> > In l2x0_init()
> > 
> >    if (!l2_enabled()) {
> >       if (non_secure()) {
> >          omap_smi_magic_l2_enable();
> >          outer_cache.disable = omap_smi_magic_l2_disable;
> >       } else {
> >          sane_l2_enable();
> >          outer_cache.disable = sane_l2_disable;
> >       }
> >    }
> 
> The non_secure() bit is the key. AFAIK there isn't an easy way to check
> whether you are running in secure or non-secure mode (I think there is
> some CP14 debug register telling this but those registers aren't
> mandatory in a CPU implementation).

And how does the kernel decide whether it needs to use that SMI code
in sleep34xx.S or not ?

Thanks,

	tglx