| To: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH resend 5/9] MIPS: sync after cacheflush |
| From: | Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:41:20 -0700 |
| Cc: | Shinya Kuribayashi <skuribay@pobox.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0mIN1987yeYFAlhCuzojHkpWfpfTBKyDsYdAdtsj9pY=; b=ZBwNyUI2xLYOP144teReZEVHoTjSyvT7ejnCPdFOvCY5cCqYioKjBii3LZH2hSG4Np sgPyDJ5LjeKsPtCE4JuEWP7aWf6OD1UMmBKtZKTG92Q9UQgUi3Tz8y7TfJXhQly8TFR4 U4zr4WIz+xHHI7f2vksOT37f8Xn/9lqj/pkGg= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Q9OcaT/DwPbc3Rb5oMhPpW0m6vaCQgaeacBDb11ZJEb3mQ2GYGQRidFWHX8DikHSDz 40FNF3TUm4HuIvHcMV9pr7lTsUpjt6Q/P1GkCnodqnRJSLVLnYEYHdOCL5VyEYGB2k2A t8HOs/rk2Y9eOXzo61VutKCarQI6FoKUh6mS4= |
| In-reply-to: | <20101018191936.GH27377@linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <17ebecce124618ddf83ec6fe8e526f93@localhost> <17d8d27a2356640a4359f1a7dcbb3b42@localhost> <4CBC4F4E.5010305@pobox.com> <20101018191936.GH27377@linux-mips.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote: > I'm trying to get a statement from the MIPS architecture guys if the > necessity to do anything beyond a cache flush is an architecture violation. IMO such a requirement would be unnecessarily strict. Larger flushes (e.g. page at a time) tend to benefit from some form of pipelining or write gathering. Forcing the processor to flush exactly 32 bytes at a time, synchronously, could really slow things down and thrash the memory controller. I have not been able to find any official statement from MIPS that says that CACHE + SYNC should be used, but that seems like the most intuitive way to implement things on the hardware side. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH resend 5/9] MIPS: sync after cacheflush, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2 RFC] of/mips: Add device tree support to MIPS, David Daney |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH resend 5/9] MIPS: sync after cacheflush, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH resend 5/9] MIPS: sync after cacheflush, Ralf Baechle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |