[PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: OMAP2+: AM43x: L2 cache support
nsekhar at ti.com
Thu Apr 10 04:56:15 PDT 2014
On Wednesday 09 April 2014 09:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:23:39PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Friday 04 April 2014 03:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:40:29PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c
>>>> index f8b8dac..6b2a056 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c
>>>> @@ -224,6 +224,14 @@ int __init omap4_l2_cache_init(void)
>>>> return omap_l2_cache_init(aux_ctrl, 0xc19fffff);
>>>> +int __init am43xx_l2_cache_init(void)
>>>> + u32 aux_ctrl = L310_AUX_CTRL_DATA_PREFETCH |
>>>> + L310_AUX_CTRL_INSTR_PREFETCH;
>>> It would be good to documenting the difference between this and OMAP4,
>>> and why you have chosen different values.
>> There are two main differences:
>> 1) OMAP4 sets Shared attribute override enable bit. TBH, I think this is
>> not needed even in OMAP4 with latest kernel, but I am not sure if I can
>> do this safely without breaking any usecase currently working with OMAP4.
>> 2) OMAP4 sets NS lockdown and NS interrupt access control bits. I
>> searched through the commit history of L2 cache support on OMAP4 but
>> there is no mention of why this was needed on OMAP4. I am checking
>> internally on the history behind this.
> That is required because as part of the enable sequence, we write to the
> lockdown registers to clear out anything that may be there before we
> enable the L2 cache. If we didn't set the NS lockdown bit, then we
> would need the secure monitor to do it for us.
And I realized yesterday that the only reason L2C is working on AM437x
is because AM437x ROM is setting these bits up for us.
> The NS interrupt access bit is also a good idea to be set, since this
> allows us to eventually support EDAC with PL310. As we don't support
> EDAC at the moment, or touch the interrupt registers, we can probably
> ignore this difference and just preserve whatever value is there for
> the time being.
> Both of these bits should be managed within the L2C code rather than by
The current L2C code is not managing the NS_LOCKDOWN bit. I can take a
shot at adding this support unless you are already looking at it.
>> 3) OMAP4 sets cache replacement policy to RR which is not a big deal
>> since thats the default anyway. We can probably drop this setting even
>> from OMAP4.
> Yes, since that would just be a case of preserving that bit.
Okay will drop this explicit setting.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel