[PATCH 1/3] ARM: at91: flush the L2 cache before entering cpu idle
Wenyou.Yang at microchip.com
Wenyou.Yang at microchip.com
Wed Jan 11 00:15:53 PST 2017
Hi Jean-Jacques,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Hiblot [mailto:jjhiblot at gmail.com]
> Sent: 2017年1月11日 0:51
> To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni at free-electrons.com>
> Cc: Wenyou Yang - A41535 <Wenyou.Yang at microchip.com>; Mark Rutland
> <mark.rutland at arm.com>; devicetree <devicetree at vger.kernel.org>; Russell
> King <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>; Wenyou Yang - A41535
> <Wenyou.Yang at microchip.com>; Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre at atmel.com>;
> Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>; Rob Herring
> <robh+dt at kernel.org>; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: at91: flush the L2 cache before entering cpu idle
>
> 2017-01-10 17:18 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni at free-electrons.com>:
> > I though a bit more about it, and I don't really like the new
> > compatible string. I don't feel this should be necessary.
> >
> > What about the following:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c index
> > b4332b727e9c..0333aca63e44 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ extern void at91_pinctrl_gpio_resume(void); static
> > struct {
> > unsigned long uhp_udp_mask;
> > int memctrl;
> > + bool has_l2_cache;
> > } at91_pm_data;
> >
> > void __iomem *at91_ramc_base[2];
> > @@ -267,6 +268,11 @@ static void at91_ddr_standby(void)
> > u32 lpr0, lpr1 = 0;
> > u32 saved_lpr0, saved_lpr1 = 0;
> >
>
> > + if (at91_pm_data.has_l2_cache) {
> > + flush_cache_all();
> what is the point of calling flush_cache_all() here ? Do we really care that dirty
> data in L1 is written to DDR ? I may be missing something but to me it's just extra
> latency.
Are you mean use outer_flush_all() to flush all cache lines in the outer cache only?
> > + outer_disable();
> It seems to me that if there's no L2 cache, then outer_disable() is a no-op. It
> could be called unconditionally.
> > + }
> > +
> > if (at91_ramc_base[1]) {
> > saved_lpr1 = at91_ramc_read(1, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR);
> > lpr1 = saved_lpr1 & ~AT91_DDRSDRC_LPCB; @@ -287,6
> > +293,9 @@ static void at91_ddr_standby(void)
> > at91_ramc_write(0, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR, saved_lpr0);
> > if (at91_ramc_base[1])
> > at91_ramc_write(1, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR, saved_lpr1);
> > +
> > + if (at91_pm_data.has_l2_cache)
> > + outer_resume();
>
> same remark as for outer_disable()
>
> Jean-Jacques
>
> > }
> >
> > /* We manage both DDRAM/SDRAM controllers, we need more than one
> > value
> > * to
> > @@ -353,6 +362,11 @@ static __init void at91_dt_ramc(void)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,pl310-cache");
> > + if (np)
> > + at91_pm_data.has_l2_cache = true;
> > + of_node_put(np);
> > +
> > at91_pm_set_standby(standby);
> > }
> >
> >
> > This has the following benefits:
> > - everybody will have the fix, regardless of whether the dtb is
> > updated
> > - has_l2_cache can be used later in at91_pm_suspend instead of calling
> > it unconditionnaly (I'll send a patch)
> >
> >
> > On 06/01/2017 at 14:59:45 +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote :
> >> For the SoCs such as SAMA5D2 and SAMA5D4 which have L2 cache, flush
> >> the L2 cache first before entering the cpu idle.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang at atmel.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >> drivers/memory/atmel-sdramc.c | 1 +
> >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c index
> >> b4332b727e9c..1a60dede1a01 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> >> @@ -289,6 +289,24 @@ static void at91_ddr_standby(void)
> >> at91_ramc_write(1, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR, saved_lpr1); }
> >>
> >> +static void at91_ddr_cache_standby(void) {
> >> + u32 saved_lpr;
> >> +
> >> + flush_cache_all();
> >> + outer_disable();
> >> +
> >> + saved_lpr = at91_ramc_read(0, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR);
> >> + at91_ramc_write(0, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR, (saved_lpr &
> >> + (~AT91_DDRSDRC_LPCB)) |
> >> + AT91_DDRSDRC_LPCB_SELF_REFRESH);
> >> +
> >> + cpu_do_idle();
> >> +
> >> + at91_ramc_write(0, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR, saved_lpr);
> >> +
> >> + outer_resume();
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /* We manage both DDRAM/SDRAM controllers, we need more than one
> value to
> >> * remember.
> >> */
> >> @@ -324,6 +342,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id const ramc_ids[]
> __initconst = {
> >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc", .data =
> at91sam9_sdram_standby },
> >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc", .data = at91_ddr_standby },
> >> { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-ddramc", .data =
> >> at91_ddr_standby },
> >> + { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d4-ddramc", .data =
> >> + at91_ddr_cache_standby },
> >> { /*sentinel*/ }
> >> };
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/memory/atmel-sdramc.c
> >> b/drivers/memory/atmel-sdramc.c index b418b39af180..7e5c5c6c1348
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/memory/atmel-sdramc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/memory/atmel-sdramc.c
> >> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id atmel_ramc_of_match[]
> = {
> >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc", .data =
> &at91rm9200_caps, },
> >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc", .data =
> &at91sam9g45_caps, },
> >> { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-ddramc", .data = &sama5d3_caps,
> >> },
> >> + { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d4-ddramc", .data = &sama5d3_caps,
> >> + },
> >> {},
> >> };
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.11.0
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
> > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> > http://free-electrons.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list