Hi Stephen,

On 18 October 2016 at 16:54, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 01:56 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 18 October 2016 at 13:10, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/18/2016 01:03 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> On 18 October 2016 at 12:58, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/18/2016 10:23 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 October 2016 at 15:35, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SoC-specific logic may be required for all forms of cache-wide
>>>>>>> operations; invalidate and flush of both dcache and icache (note that
>>>>>>> only 3 of the 4 possible combinations make sense, since the icache
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> contains dirty lines). This patch adds an optional hook for all
>>>>>>> implemented cache-wide operations, and renames the one existing hook
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> better represent exactly which operation it is implementing. A dummy
>>>>>>> no-op implementation of each hook is provided. These dummy
>>>>>>> implementations are moved into C code, since there's no need to
>>>>>>> implement them in assembly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  arch/arm/cpu/armv8/cache.S                   |  6 ------
>>>>>>>  arch/arm/cpu/armv8/cache_v8.c                | 23
>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>>  arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/lowlevel.S |  4 ++--
>>>>>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/system.h                |  5 ++++-
>>>>>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra186/cache.c         |  2 +-
>>>>>>>  5 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should have a proper interface for this stuff rather than
>>>>>> weak functions. Maybe we need a linker-list approach, or a cache
>>>>>> uclass?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's improper about this interface? Presumably we could argue that no
>>>>> function in the entire of U-Boot be called by symbol name, which
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> seem useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure exactly what you envisage by a linker-list approach. Can
>>>>> you
>>>>> provide some background? I understand how the linker can construct list
>>>>> of
>>>>> objects/implementations/..., but that doesn't seem useful here since
>>>>> there's
>>>>> a known-ahead-of-time single implementation of these functions in a
>>>>> single
>>>>> build of U-Boot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your own commit messages says that this is SoC-specific. I'm
>>>> suggesting that we define an interface (which I think you have already
>>>> done with your header file additions), and allow SoCs to implement it
>>>> via a linker list.
>>>>
>>>> IMO the cache code in U-Boot is starting to get a bit creaky.
>>>>
>>>>> A cache uclass seems like /massive/ overkill, especially since I'd
>>>>> expect
>>>>> these very low-level functions to be required well before any higher
>>>>> level
>>>>> code like DM/classes/... to be available.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DM is available very early. But it's not clear from your patch when
>>>> this code is actually called.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that weak functions are a perfectly acceptable approach here.
>>>
>>> Yes, the implementation of these functions is SoC-specific. The Makefiles
>>> will pull in the appropriate implementation for that SoC whenever U-Boot
>>> is
>>> built, just like every other board- or SoC-specific function in the
>>> entire
>>> of U-Boot.
>>>
>>> There's no need for linker lists since there is only ever one
>>> implementation.
>>
>>
>> If there is only ever one implementation, why do you need weak
>> functions?
>
>
> As I explicitly stated above, each SoC can have a different implementation,
> yet only a single implementation is ever needed for a particular U-Boot
> build.
>
>> Just call them directly.
>
>
> The code is doing that, both before and after my patch.

I mean call them without needing weak functions.

>
>> I think in fact you mean that
>> there can be no implementation (but perhaps an empty one), or one
>> implementation. You are effectively using multiple weak functions to
>> provide default code. I think it would be better if this were
>> explicit.
>>
>> I still think that the cache functions could do with a rethink.
>
>
> In my opinion, this patch doesn't change the code structure at all. There is
> already an interface between the core (L1/L2) cache management code and the
> SoC-specific cache management code. That interface already uses a weak
> function to provide the default no-op implementation. This patch doesn't
> change any of that. All this patch does is fix that existing interface to
> cover all 3 combinations of dcache_flush, dcache_invalidate, and
> icache_invalidate, rather than just one of those combinations. It's more of
> a bug-fix than anything else.

Yes I see that.

>
> If you want to rework this interface sometime, be my guest. However, I don't
> think it's fair to require that someone who simply wants to fix the existing
> code (in a way that is orthogonal to your desired interface refactoring) do
> that refactoring first, rather than doing it yourself.

I understand what you are saying, but isn't that how open source
software works? Believe me, I have done my fair share of refactoring
:-)

At least can you look at not making it any harder to fix up later? The
more we pile onto this interface, the harder it will be later. We
should aim to make ARMv8 really nice as it is the new thing.

Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to