Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch/arm: Add individual TLB size support.

2014-09-18 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Hi Albert,

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:55:00 +0200, Albert ARIBAUD
albert.u.b...@aribaud.net wrote:

 Hi li.xi...@freescale.com,
 
 On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:10:27 +, li.xi...@freescale.com
 li.xi...@freescale.com wrote:
 
  Hi Albert,
  
   Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/arm: Add individual TLB size support.
   
   Hi Xiubo,
   
   On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:19:11 +0800, Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
   wrote:
   
This adds CONFIG_TLB_SIZE for individual board, whose TLB size maybe
larger than PGTABLE_SIZE.
   
Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
---
 arch/arm/lib/board.c | 4 
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
   
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/board.c b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
index dc34190..b7327ce 100644
--- a/arch/arm/lib/board.c
+++ b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
@@ -353,7 +353,11 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
   
 #if !(defined(CONFIG_SYS_ICACHE_OFF)  defined(CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF))
/* reserve TLB table */
+#ifdef CONFIG_TLB_SIZE
+   gd-arch.tlb_size = CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
+#else
gd-arch.tlb_size = PGTABLE_SIZE;
+#endif
addr -= gd-arch.tlb_size;
   
/* round down to next 64 kB limit */
   
   There is no code in current mainline which defines CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
   that makes the patch a dead code addition.
  
  
  Yes, this will be used by our LS1 SoC first, and it is still doing
  The upstream.
 
 Then please sumbit this patch as part of the LS1 SoC support series,
 where the code it creates will actually be used.
  
   Besides, what's the point of this as opposed to, e.g., just defining the
   right PGTABLE_SIZE, or renaming PGTABLE_SIZE as CONFIG_TLB_SIZE?
   
  
  We'll add the LPAE support in uboot and need more space for tlb.
 
 I still don't get it. Is gd-arch.tlb_size the size of a page table or
 of a translation lookahead buffer?

Ping on both points. Meanwhile I've put the patch in 'Changes
Requested' state.

  Thanks very much,
  
  BRs
  Xiubo
 
 Amicalement,

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot


Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch/arm: Add individual TLB size support.

2014-09-11 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Hi li.xi...@freescale.com,

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:10:27 +, li.xi...@freescale.com
li.xi...@freescale.com wrote:

 Hi Albert,
 
  Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/arm: Add individual TLB size support.
  
  Hi Xiubo,
  
  On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:19:11 +0800, Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
  wrote:
  
   This adds CONFIG_TLB_SIZE for individual board, whose TLB size maybe
   larger than PGTABLE_SIZE.
  
   Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
   ---
arch/arm/lib/board.c | 4 
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
  
   diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/board.c b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
   index dc34190..b7327ce 100644
   --- a/arch/arm/lib/board.c
   +++ b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
   @@ -353,7 +353,11 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
  
#if !(defined(CONFIG_SYS_ICACHE_OFF)  defined(CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF))
 /* reserve TLB table */
   +#ifdef CONFIG_TLB_SIZE
   + gd-arch.tlb_size = CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
   +#else
 gd-arch.tlb_size = PGTABLE_SIZE;
   +#endif
 addr -= gd-arch.tlb_size;
  
 /* round down to next 64 kB limit */
  
  There is no code in current mainline which defines CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
  that makes the patch a dead code addition.
 
 
 Yes, this will be used by our LS1 SoC first, and it is still doing
 The upstream.

Then please sumbit this patch as part of the LS1 SoC support series,
where the code it creates will actually be used.
 
  Besides, what's the point of this as opposed to, e.g., just defining the
  right PGTABLE_SIZE, or renaming PGTABLE_SIZE as CONFIG_TLB_SIZE?
  
 
 We'll add the LPAE support in uboot and need more space for tlb.

I still don't get it. Is gd-arch.tlb_size the size of a page table or
of a translation lookahead buffer?

 Thanks very much,
 
 BRs
 Xiubo

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot


Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch/arm: Add individual TLB size support.

2014-09-10 Thread li.xi...@freescale.com
Hi Albert,

 Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/arm: Add individual TLB size support.
 
 Hi Xiubo,
 
 On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:19:11 +0800, Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
 wrote:
 
  This adds CONFIG_TLB_SIZE for individual board, whose TLB size maybe
  larger than PGTABLE_SIZE.
 
  Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
  ---
   arch/arm/lib/board.c | 4 
   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
 
  diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/board.c b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
  index dc34190..b7327ce 100644
  --- a/arch/arm/lib/board.c
  +++ b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
  @@ -353,7 +353,11 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
 
   #if !(defined(CONFIG_SYS_ICACHE_OFF)  defined(CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF))
  /* reserve TLB table */
  +#ifdef CONFIG_TLB_SIZE
  +   gd-arch.tlb_size = CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
  +#else
  gd-arch.tlb_size = PGTABLE_SIZE;
  +#endif
  addr -= gd-arch.tlb_size;
 
  /* round down to next 64 kB limit */
 
 There is no code in current mainline which defines CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
 that makes the patch a dead code addition.


Yes, this will be used by our LS1 SoC first, and it is still doing
The upstream.

 
 Besides, what's the point of this as opposed to, e.g., just defining the
 right PGTABLE_SIZE, or renaming PGTABLE_SIZE as CONFIG_TLB_SIZE?
 

We'll add the LPAE support in uboot and need more space for tlb.

Thanks very much,

BRs
Xiubo



___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot


Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch/arm: Add individual TLB size support.

2014-09-09 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Hi Xiubo,

On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:19:11 +0800, Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
wrote:

 This adds CONFIG_TLB_SIZE for individual board, whose TLB size maybe
 larger than PGTABLE_SIZE.
 
 Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li li.xi...@freescale.com
 ---
  arch/arm/lib/board.c | 4 
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
 
 diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/board.c b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
 index dc34190..b7327ce 100644
 --- a/arch/arm/lib/board.c
 +++ b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
 @@ -353,7 +353,11 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
  
  #if !(defined(CONFIG_SYS_ICACHE_OFF)  defined(CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF))
   /* reserve TLB table */
 +#ifdef CONFIG_TLB_SIZE
 + gd-arch.tlb_size = CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
 +#else
   gd-arch.tlb_size = PGTABLE_SIZE;
 +#endif
   addr -= gd-arch.tlb_size;
  
   /* round down to next 64 kB limit */

There is no code in current mainline which defines CONFIG_TLB_SIZE;
that makes the patch a dead code addition.

Besides, what's the point of this as opposed to, e.g., just defining the
right PGTABLE_SIZE, or renaming PGTABLE_SIZE as CONFIG_TLB_SIZE?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot