Re: [PATCH] arm64: tegra: add topology data for Tegra194 cpu
From: Bo Yan
Date: Mon Feb 11 2019 - 18:34:33 EST
To make this simpler, I think it's best to isolate the cache information
in its own patch. So I will amend this patch to include topology
information only.
On 1/31/19 3:29 PM, Bo Yan wrote:
On 1/31/19 2:25 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:35:54AM -0800, Bo Yan wrote:
The xavier CPU architecture includes 8 CPU cores organized in
4 clusters. Add cpu-map data for topology initialization, add
cache data for cache node creation in sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Bo Yan <byan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi | 148
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 140 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
index 6dfa1ca..7c2a1fb 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
@@ -870,63 +870,195 @@
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
These don't seem to be well-defined. They are mentioned in a very weird
locations (Documentation/devicetree/booting-without-of.txt) but there
seem to be examples and other device tree files that use them so maybe
those are all valid. It might be worth mentioning these in other places
where people can more easily find them.
It might be logical to place a reference to this document
(booting-without-of.txt) in architecture specific documents, for
example, arm/cpus.txt. I see the need for improved documentation, but
this probably should be best done in a separate change.
According to the above document, {i,d}-cache-line-size are deprecated in
favour of {i,d}-cache-block-size.
Mostly, this seems to be derived from the oddity of PowerPC, which might
have different cache-line-size and cache-block-size. I don't know if
there are other examples? It looks like the {i,d}-cache-line-size are
being used in dts files for almost all architectures, the only exception
is arch/sh/boot/dts/j2_mimas_v2.dts. On ARM and ARM64, cache-line-size
is the same as cache-block-size. So I am wondering whether the
booting-without-of.txt should be fixed instead? just to keep it
consistent among dts files, especially in arm64.
I also don't see any mention of {i,d}-cache_sets in the device tree
bindings, though riscv/cpus.txt mentions {i,d}-cache-sets (note the
hyphen instead of underscore) in the examples. arm/l2c2x0.txt and
arm/uniphier/cache-unifier.txt describe cache-sets, though that's
slightly different.
Might make sense to document all these in more standard places. Maybe
adding them to arm/cpus.txt. For consistency with other properties, I
think there should be called {i,d}-cache-sets like for RISC-V.
+ l2-cache = <&l2_0>;
This seems to be called next-level-cache everywhere else, though it's
only formally described in arm/uniphier/cache-uniphier.txt. So might
also make sense to add this to arm/cpus.txt.
the improved documentation is certainly desired, I agree.
};
- cpu@1 {
+ cl0_1: cpu@1 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-carmel", "arm,armv8";
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0x10001>;
enable-method = "psci";
+ i-cache-size = <131072>;
+ i-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ i-cache-sets = <512>;
+ d-cache-size = <65536>;
+ d-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ d-cache_sets = <256>;
+ l2-cache = <&l2_0>;
};
- cpu@2 {
+ cl1_0: cpu@2 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-carmel", "arm,armv8";
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0x100>;
enable-method = "psci";
+ i-cache-size = <131072>;
+ i-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ i-cache-sets = <512>;
+ d-cache-size = <65536>;
+ d-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ d-cache_sets = <256>;
+ l2-cache = <&l2_1>;
};
- cpu@3 {
+ cl1_1: cpu@3 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-carmel", "arm,armv8";
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0x101>;
enable-method = "psci";
+ i-cache-size = <131072>;
+ i-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ i-cache-sets = <512>;
+ d-cache-size = <65536>;
+ d-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ d-cache_sets = <256>;
+ l2-cache = <&l2_1>;
};
- cpu@4 {
+ cl2_0: cpu@4 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-carmel", "arm,armv8";
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0x200>;
enable-method = "psci";
+ i-cache-size = <131072>;
+ i-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ i-cache-sets = <512>;
+ d-cache-size = <65536>;
+ d-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ d-cache_sets = <256>;
+ l2-cache = <&l2_2>;
};
- cpu@5 {
+ cl2_1: cpu@5 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-carmel", "arm,armv8";
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0x201>;
enable-method = "psci";
+ i-cache-size = <131072>;
+ i-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ i-cache-sets = <512>;
+ d-cache-size = <65536>;
+ d-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ d-cache_sets = <256>;
+ l2-cache = <&l2_2>;
};
- cpu@6 {
+ cl3_0: cpu@6 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-carmel", "arm,armv8";
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0x10300>;
enable-method = "psci";
+ i-cache-size = <131072>;
+ i-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ i-cache-sets = <512>;
+ d-cache-size = <65536>;
+ d-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ d-cache_sets = <256>;
+ l2-cache = <&l2_3>;
};
- cpu@7 {
+ cl3_1: cpu@7 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-carmel", "arm,armv8";
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0x10301>;
enable-method = "psci";
+ i-cache-size = <131072>;
+ i-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ i-cache-sets = <512>;
+ d-cache-size = <65536>;
+ d-cache-line-size = <64>;
+ d-cache_sets = <256>;
+ l2-cache = <&l2_3>;
};
};
+ l2_0: l2-cache0 {
+ cache-size = <2097152>;
+ cache-line-size = <64>;
+ cache-sets = <2048>;
+ next-level-cache = <&l3>;
+ };
Does this need a compatible string? Also, are there controllers behind
these caches? I'm just wondering if these also need reg properties and
unit-addresses.
No need for compatible string. No reg properties and addresses. These
will be parsed by drivers/of/base.c and drivers/base/cacheinfo.c, they
are generic.
arm/l2c2x0.txt and arm/uniphier/cache-uniphier.txt describe an
additional property that you don't specify here: cache-level. This
sounds useful to have so that we don't have to guess the cache level
from the name, which may or may not work depending on what people name
the nodes.
the cache level property is implied in device tree hierarchy, so after
system boots up, I can find cache level in related sysfs nodes:
[root@alarm cache]# cat index*/level
1
1
2
3
Also, similar to the L1 cache, cache-block-size is preferred over
cache-line-size.
+ l3: l3-cache {
+ cache-size = <4194304>;
+ cache-line-size = <64>;
+ cache-sets = <4096>;
+ };
The same comments apply as for the L2 caches.
Thierry