On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:14:11AM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:06:01AM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:16:29AM +0000, French, Nicholas A. wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, I see. So my proposed ioremap_wc call was only "working" by aliasing
> > > ioremap_nocache()'d mem area and not actually using write combining at
> > There are some debugging PAT toys out there I think but I haven't played
> > them yet or I forgot how to to confirm or deny this sort of effort, but
> > likeley.
> In fact come to think of it I believe some neurons are telling me that if
> two type does not match we'd get an error?
I based my guess on some text i read in "PATting Linux" :
"ioremap interfaces will succeed if there is an existing,
more lenient mapping. Example: If there is an existing
uncached mapping to a physical range, any request for
write-back or write-combine mapping will succeed, but
will eventually map the memory as uncached"
But I will try to get some debugpat going to confirm.
 = https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2008/ols2008v2-pages-135-144.pdf
> > So unless there is a io-re-remap to change the caching status of a subset of
> > the decoder's memory once we find out what the framebuffer offset is inside
> > the original iremap_nocache'd area, then its a no go for write combining to
> > the framebuffer with PAT.
> No what if the framebuffer driver is just requested as a secondary step
> after firmware loading?
Its a possibility. The decoder firmware gets loaded at the beginning of the
memory range and we know its length, so its possible to ioremap_nocache enough
room for the firmware only on init and then ioremap the remaining non-firmware
decoder memory areas appropriately after the firmware load succeeds...
> > > On the other hand, it works fine for me with a nocache'd framebuffer. It's
> > > certainly better for me personally to have a nocache framebuffer with
> > > PAT-enabled than the framebuffer completely disabled with PAT-enabled,
> > > but I
> > > don't think I would even propose to rollback the x86 nopat requirement in
> > > general. Apparently the throngs of people using this super-popular driver
> > > feature haven't complained in the last couple years, so maybe its OK for
> > > me
> > > to just patch the pat-enabled guard out and deal with a nocache'd
> > > framebuffer.
> > Nope, best you add a feature to just let you disable wc stuff, to enable
> > life with PAT.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Perhaps the easy answer is to change the fatal is-pat-enabled check to just a
warning like "you have PAT enabled, so wc is disabled for the framebuffer.
if you want wc, use the nopat parameter"?