On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 23:29 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:17:29AM +0200, Sjoerd Simons wrote: > > extern struct outer_cache_fns outer_cache; > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > index e309c8f..fff7888 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > @@ -136,7 +136,8 @@ static void l2c_enable(void __iomem *base, u32 aux, > > unsigned num_lock) > > l2x0_saved_regs.aux_ctrl = aux; > > l2c_configure(base); > > > > - l2c_unlock(base, num_lock); > > + if (!outer_cache.skip_unlock) > > + l2c_unlock(base, num_lock); > > I think we can do better here. If the non-secure lockdown access bit has > been set, then proceed with the unlock: > > if (readl_relaxed(base + L2X0_AUX_CTRL) & L310_AUX_CTRL_NS_LOCKDOWN) > l2c_unlock(base, num_lock); > > I don't see any need to add a flag for this. This also eliminates your > second patch.
Main reason I added the flag like this was to simplify the changes as l2c_enable has no real knowledge about which type of cache it's running on. But sure i will have a look at re-jigging the code such that the situation is automatically detected rather then requiring the machine specific code to flag it explicitely -- Sjoerd Simons <[email protected]> Collabora Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
