Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] riscv: cacheinfo: initialize cacheinfo's level and type from ACPI PPTT

[Jeremy Linton]

Hi,

On 4/17/24 22:43, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> Before cacheinfo can be built correctly, we need to initialize level
> and type. Since RSIC-V currently does not have a register group that
> describes cache-related attributes like ARM64, we cannot obtain them
> directly, so now we obtain cache leaves from the ACPI PPTT table
> (acpi_get_cache_info()) and set the cache type through split_levels.
>
> Suggested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> index 30a6878287ad..e47a1e6bd3fe 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>   #include <linux/cpu.h>
>   #include <linux/of.h>
>   #include <asm/cacheinfo.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>   
>   static struct riscv_cacheinfo_ops *rv_cache_ops;
>   
> @@ -78,6 +79,27 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
>   	struct device_node *prev = NULL;
>   	int levels = 1, level = 1;
>   
> +	if (!acpi_disabled) {
> +		int ret, fw_levels, split_levels;
> +
> +		ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &fw_levels, &split_levels);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +
> +		BUG_ON((split_levels > fw_levels) ||
> +		       (split_levels + fw_levels > this_cpu_ci->num_leaves));
> +
> +		for (; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels; level++) {
> +			if (level <= split_levels) {
> +				ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level);
> +				ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level);
> +			} else {
> +				ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level);
> +			}
> +		}
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>   	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size"))
>   		ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level);
>   	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size"))

Yes, looks good.

Reviewed-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>



Thanks,