Re: [PATCH] mtd: bcm47xxsflash: use ioremap_cachable() instead of KSEG0ADDR()

From: RafaÅ MiÅecki
Date: Fri Feb 26 2016 - 11:31:58 EST


On 26 February 2016 at 15:18, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>
>> >> KSEG0ADDR was translating 0x1c000000 into 0x9c000000. With
>> >> ioremap_cachable we use MIPS's __ioremap (and remap_area_pages). This
>> >> results in different address (e.g. 0xc0080000) but it still should be
>> >> cached as expected and it was successfully tested with BCM47186B0.
>> >
>> > This is due to this piece:
>> >
>> > /*
>> > * Map uncached objects in the low 512mb of address space using KSEG1,
>> > * otherwise map using page tables.
>> > */
>> > if (IS_LOW512(phys_addr) && IS_LOW512(last_addr) &&
>> > flags == _CACHE_UNCACHED)
>> > return (void __iomem *) CKSEG1ADDR(phys_addr);
>> >
>> > special-casing uncached mapping only (replicated in 2 places). I think
>> > there will really be no harm from returning a KSEG0 mapping for calls
>> > requesting a caching mode equal to `_page_cachable_default', which --
>> > depending on the cache architecture -- will have been either hardwired or
>> > prearranged via Config.K0. I think there's really no need to put pressure
>> > on the TLB, which may be small, in cases where a fixed mapping will do.
>>
>> No, it isn't hitting condition you pointed. We call ioremap_cachable
>> which uses _page_cachable_default as a flag. This flag
>> (_page_cachable_default) isn't equal to the _CACHE_UNCACHED.
>
> That's exactly what I wrote: code I quoted is "special-casing uncached
> mapping only" -- which as you have correctly observed does not apply after
> your change anymore. Which is why previously you got an address in the
> unmapped KSEG1 segment and now you get an address in the mapped KSEG2
> rather than the unmapped KSEG0 segment.
>
>> Moreover code you pointed uses CKSEG1ADDR which would result in
>> setting bit KSEG1 (0xa0000000). As I pointed in the commit message
>> address it ORed with KSEG2 (0xc0000000).
>
> It's not merely ORed, it's actually mapped via the TLB.
>
> I hope this makes things clear.

Ah, sorry, I missed the point of your explanation. Now it's clear, thanks!

--
RafaÅ