On 11/05/15 18:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 01 May 2015 12:06:44 Catalin Marinas wrote:
If we just disallow DMA to devices that are marked with _CCA=0
in ACPI, we can avoid this case, or discuss it by the time someone has
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 01 May 2015 12:06:44 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > If we just disallow DMA to devices that are marked with _CCA=0
> > > in ACPI, we can avoid this case, or discuss it by the time someone has
> > > hardware
> > > that wants
On 11/05/15 18:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 01 May 2015 12:06:44 Catalin Marinas wrote:
If we just disallow DMA to devices that are marked with _CCA=0
in ACPI, we can avoid this case, or discuss it by the time someone has
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 01 May 2015 12:06:44 Catalin Marinas wrote:
If we just disallow DMA to devices that are marked with _CCA=0
in ACPI, we can avoid this case, or discuss it by the time someone has
hardware
that wants it, and then
On Friday 01 May 2015 12:06:44 Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > Note that there are lots of ways in which you could have noncoherent DMA:
> > the default on ARM32 is that it requires uncached access or explicit
> > cache flushes, but it's also possible to have an SMP system where a device
> > is only
On Thursday 30 April 2015 16:55:14 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:52:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 April 2015 14:13:45 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will
On Friday 01 May 2015 12:06:44 Catalin Marinas wrote:
Note that there are lots of ways in which you could have noncoherent DMA:
the default on ARM32 is that it requires uncached access or explicit
cache flushes, but it's also possible to have an SMP system where a device
is only coherent
On Thursday 30 April 2015 16:55:14 Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:52:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 14:13:45 Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:54:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 April 2015 14:57:10 Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
> > Otherwise, it would seem inconsistent with what states in the ACPI spec:
> >
> > CCA objects are only relevant for devices that can access
> > CPU-visible
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:54:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 14:57:10 Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
Otherwise, it would seem inconsistent with what states in the ACPI spec:
CCA objects are only relevant for devices that can access
CPU-visible memory,
On 4/30/2015 3:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
[...]
As for the case where _CCA=0, I think the ACPI driver should essentially
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:52:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 30 April 2015 14:13:45 Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Cache sync doesn't exist in the
On Thursday 30 April 2015 14:13:45 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > In particular, there are two common models
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > In particular, there are two common models that we support in Linux:
> > >
> > > a) embedded ARM32 and
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:07:18 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > So for the CPU caches we'd do the usual clean to push dirty lines to the
> > > device
> > > and (clean+)invalidate
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:07:18 Will Deacon wrote:
> > So for the CPU caches we'd do the usual clean to push dirty lines to the
> > device
> > and (clean+)invalidate before reading data from the device. For the "other
> > caches
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:07:18 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:47:46AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 April 2015 11:41:02 Will Deacon wrote:
> > >- 0x0: The device is not coherent. Therefore:
> > > * Cache maintenance is required for memory shared with
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:47:46AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 30 April 2015 11:41:02 Will Deacon wrote:
> >- 0x0: The device is not coherent. Therefore:
> > * Cache maintenance is required for memory shared with the
> >device that is mapped on CPUs as IWB-OWB-ISH.
>
On Thursday 30 April 2015 11:41:02 Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:23:59AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > > As for the case where _CCA=0, I think the ACPI driver should essentially
> > >
Hi Arnd,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:23:59AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > As for the case where _CCA=0, I think the ACPI driver should essentially
> > communicate the information as HW is non-coherent as described in the
> >
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> On 4/29/15 11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> >> index 4bf7559..a4db208 100644
> >> ---
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
index 4bf7559..a4db208 100644
---
Hi Arnd,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:23:59AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
As for the case where _CCA=0, I think the ACPI driver should essentially
communicate the information as HW is non-coherent as described in the
spec,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:47:46AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 11:41:02 Will Deacon wrote:
- 0x0: The device is not coherent. Therefore:
* Cache maintenance is required for memory shared with the
device that is mapped on CPUs as IWB-OWB-ISH.
This
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:07:18 Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:47:46AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 11:41:02 Will Deacon wrote:
- 0x0: The device is not coherent. Therefore:
* Cache maintenance is required for memory shared with the
On Thursday 30 April 2015 11:41:02 Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Arnd,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:23:59AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
As for the case where _CCA=0, I think the ACPI driver should essentially
communicate the
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
In particular, there are two common models that we support in Linux:
a) embedded ARM32 and others
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:07:18 Will Deacon wrote:
So for the CPU caches we'd do the usual clean to push dirty lines to the
device
and (clean+)invalidate before
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:07:18 Will Deacon wrote:
So for the CPU caches we'd do the usual clean to push dirty lines to the
device
and (clean+)invalidate before reading data from the device. For the other
caches in the
On Thursday 30 April 2015 14:13:45 Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
In particular, there are two common models that we
On 4/30/2015 3:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
[...]
As for the case where _CCA=0, I think the ACPI driver should essentially
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:52:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 14:13:45 Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:46:15 Will Deacon wrote:
Cache sync doesn't exist in the ARM/arm64architecture,
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:39:25 Al Stone wrote:
>
> When the spec was being changed for _CCA, it was determined by the ASWG
> that there was no reasonable default -- either choice would break something.
> Multiple OSs, SoC vendors, and platform vendors were asked. So, the spec
> says for
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 14:57:10 Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
> Otherwise, it would seem inconsistent with what states in the ACPI spec:
>
> CCA objects are only relevant for devices that can access CPU-visible
> memory,
> such as devices that are DMA capable. On ARM based systems, the
On 04/29/2015 08:57 AM, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
>
>
> On 4/29/15, 09:47, "Arnd Bergmann" wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:45:43 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>> On 04/29/2015 09:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/29/15, 09:47, "Arnd Bergmann" wrote:
>On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:45:43 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> On 04/29/2015 09:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> >> + device->flags.cca_seen = 1;
>> >> +
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:45:43 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> On 04/29/2015 09:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >> + device->flags.cca_seen = 1;
> >> + } else if
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:39:25 Al Stone wrote:
When the spec was being changed for _CCA, it was determined by the ASWG
that there was no reasonable default -- either choice would break something.
Multiple OSs, SoC vendors, and platform vendors were asked. So, the spec
says for ARMv8,
On 04/29/2015 08:57 AM, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
On 4/29/15, 09:47, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:45:43 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 04/29/2015 09:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
+
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 14:57:10 Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
Otherwise, it would seem inconsistent with what states in the ACPI spec:
CCA objects are only relevant for devices that can access CPU-visible
memory,
such as devices that are DMA capable. On ARM based systems, the _CCA
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:45:43 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 04/29/2015 09:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
+ device-flags.cca_seen = 1;
+ } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_MUST_HAVE_CCA))
On 4/29/15, 09:47, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 09:45:43 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 04/29/2015 09:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
+ device-flags.cca_seen = 1;
+
42 matches
Mail list logo
