[PATCH 1/3] soc cache: L3 cache driver for HiSilicon SoC

[wangyushan]

On 2/5/2026 5:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/02/2026 18:19, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026, at 17:18, Yushan Wang wrote:
>>> The driver will create a file of `/dev/hisi_l3c` on init, mmap
>>> operations to it will allocate a memory region that is guaranteed to be
>>> placed in L3 cache.
>>>
>>> The driver also provides unmap() to deallocated the locked memory.
>>>
>>> The driver also provides an ioctl interface for user to get cache lock
>>> information, such as lock restrictions and locked sizes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yushan Wang <wangyushan12 at huawei.com>
>>
>> Hi Yushan,
>>
>> Thanks for your submission. Since we are in the last week of
>> the merge window, this is not going to be linux-7.0 material,
>> but I'll have a quick look for now.
>
>
> To be clear - this is a v3 but with removed previous history...
>
> Previous version:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251217102357.1730573-2-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
>
> Or even v4?
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250122065803.3363926-2-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
>
> Yushan, please start versioning your patches correctly. Use b4 or git
> format-patch -vx

Hi Krzysztof,

Sorry about the confusing versions, the complete history is as below:

Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250107132907.3521574-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com

Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250122065803.3363926-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/

Link to RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251125080542.3721829-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/

Link to RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251217102357.1730573-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/

Link to v1 again (this message): https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260203161843.649417-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/

>
> Otherwise, please explain us how can we compare it with `b4 diff` with
> previous version?
>
> Sending something AGAIN as v1 ignoring entire previous submission is
> clear no go. Like you are trying till it succeeds. Negative review?
> Let's try from v1 this time...
>
> This is not correct and it should not be my task to find your previous
> discussions and decipher this v1.

I did spin 2 versions to mainline as the actual v1, the thread was quiet.
Then I made a major refactor to it and sent it as RFC, the thread went
quiet again but some compile check issues popped up. I spinned 2
versions of RFC for the compile issues and removed RFC in this version
since no strong objection showed up.

Apologize that I broke the rules and any inconvenience caused by it.
As there's little discussion in previous patches, is it OK that we start
here as v1?

Anyway I will include the whole history in the coverletter to prevent
more confusion.

>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

Thanks,
Yushan