[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What's up with cpu_is_noncoherent_r10000() ?

To: David Daney <>
Subject: Re: What's up with cpu_is_noncoherent_r10000() ?
From: (Thomas Bogendoerfer)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:46:01 +0200
Cc: MIPS Linux List <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 09:34:29AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> What is the reasoning for only doing the cache operation on  R10K based 
> systems?

non coherent R10k need after DMA operations to get rid of remains
of load/store speculations. Other CPUs don't pollute the cache
after it got flushed.

But this optimization is wrong, we need to do the flush for
every non coherent device otherwise polling a descriptor via
a cached mapping can't work. And this exactly what E100 does.

Instead of if (cpu_is_noncoherent_r10000(deva)) something like

if (cpu_is_noncoherent_r10000(dev) || 
    (!plat_device_is_coherent(dev) && (direction != DMA_TO_DEVICE)))

should do the trick with minimum flushes for non R10k CPUs. But probably
a simple

if ((!plat_device_is_coherent(dev))

is the safest approach.


Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>