On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:15:42PM +0900, Yoichi Yuasa wrote:
Patch looks ok - but I think we also have to assume that the starting
address of the range might be miss-aligned, so how about this patch?
Ralf
Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
index 56290a7..c43f4b2 100644
--- a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
+++ b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
@@ -619,8 +619,20 @@ static void r4k_dma_cache_inv(unsigned long addr, unsigned
long size)
if (size >= scache_size)
r4k_blast_scache();
else {
- cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_SD, addr);
- cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_SD, addr + size - 1);
+ unsigned long lsize = cpu_scache_line_size();
+ unsigned long almask = ~(lsize - 1);
+
+ /*
+ * There is no clearly documented alignment requirement
+ * for the cache instruction on MIPS processors and
+ * some processors, among them the RM5200 and RM7000
+ * QED processors will throw an address error for cache
+ * hit ops with insufficient alignment. Solved by
+ * aligning the address to cache line size.
+ */
+ cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_SD, addr & almask);
+ cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_SD,
+ (addr + size - 1) & almask);
blast_inv_scache_range(addr, addr + size);
}
return;
@@ -629,9 +641,12 @@ static void r4k_dma_cache_inv(unsigned long addr, unsigned
long size)
if (cpu_has_safe_index_cacheops && size >= dcache_size) {
r4k_blast_dcache();
} else {
+ unsigned long lsize = cpu_dcache_line_size();
+ unsigned long almask = ~(lsize - 1);
+
R4600_HIT_CACHEOP_WAR_IMPL;
- cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_D, addr);
- cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_D, addr + size - 1);
+ cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_D, addr & almask);
+ cache_op(Hit_Writeback_Inv_D, (addr + size - 1) & almask);
blast_inv_dcache_range(addr, addr + size);
}
|