[PATCH v3] ARM: l2x0: Add OF based initialization
Grant Likely
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Tue Jul 5 13:55:11 EST 2011
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>
> This adds probing for ARM L2x0 cache controllers via device tree. Support
> includes the L210, L220, and PL310 controllers. The binding allows setting
> up cache RAM latencies and filter addresses (PL310 only).
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
> ---
> I've tested this version and fixed some issues from the one I sent to the
> CSR platform thread.
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Allow platforms to set aux ctrl reg with aux_value and aux_mask.
> - Add RAM latency and filter address bindings based on CSR's platform needs.
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt | 40 ++++++++
> arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h | 17 ++++
> arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..79e66fb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +* ARM L2 Cache Controller
> +
> +ARM cores often have a separate level 2 cache controller. There are various
> +implementations of the L2 cache controller with compatible programming models.
> +The ARM L2 cache representation in the device tree should be done as under:-
Damaged sentence?
> +
> +Required properties:
> +
> +- compatible : should be one of
> + "arm,pl310-cache"
> + "arm,l220-cache"
> + "arm,l210-cache"
> +- cache-unified : Specifies the cache is a unified cache.
> +- cache-level : Should be set to 2 for a level 2 cache.
> +- reg : Physical base address and size of cache controller's memory mapped
> + registers.
> +
> +Optional properties:
> +
> +- data-latency : Cycles of latency for Data RAM accesses. Specifies 3 cells of
> + read, write and setup latencies. Controllers without setup latency control
> + should use 0.
> +- tag-latency : Cycles of latency for Tag RAM accesses. Specifies 3 cells of
> + read, write and setup latencies. Controllers without setup latency control
> + should use 0.
> +- dirty-latency : Cycles of latency for reads of Dirty RAMs. This is a single
> + cell.t
> +- filter-ranges : <start end> Address range the
Incomplete sentence?
Typically address ranges in the DT are <start size> pairs. Does the
filter-ranges property deviate from this?
Personally, I'd suggest prefixing these custom properties with "arm,"
to avoid any potential namespace conflict.
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +L2: l2-cache {
> + compatible = "arm,pl310-cache", "cache";
Drop "cache". It isn't useful.
> + reg = <0xfff12000 0x1000>;
> + data-latency = <1 1 1>;
> + tag-latency = <2 2 2>;
> + cache-unified;
> + cache-level = <2>;
> +};
> +
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h
> index 16bd480..8fe149f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@
> #define L2X0_CLEAN_INV_WAY 0x7FC
> #define L2X0_LOCKDOWN_WAY_D 0x900
> #define L2X0_LOCKDOWN_WAY_I 0x904
> +#define L2X0_ADDR_FILTER_START 0xC00
> +#define L2X0_ADDR_FILTER_END 0xC04
> #define L2X0_TEST_OPERATION 0xF00
> #define L2X0_LINE_DATA 0xF10
> #define L2X0_LINE_TAG 0xF30
> @@ -62,6 +64,14 @@
> #define L2X0_CACHE_ID_PART_L310 (3 << 6)
>
> #define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_MASK 0xc0000fff
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_RD_LATENCY_SHIFT 0
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_RD_LATENCY_MASK 0x7
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_WR_LATENCY_SHIFT 3
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_WR_LATENCY_MASK (0x7 << 3)
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_TAG_LATENCY_SHIFT 6
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_TAG_LATENCY_MASK (0x7 << 6)
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DIRTY_LATENCY_SHIFT 9
> +#define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DIRTY_LATENCY_MASK (0x7 << 9)
> #define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_ASSOCIATIVITY_SHIFT 16
> #define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_WAY_SIZE_SHIFT 17
> #define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_WAY_SIZE_MASK (0x3 << 17)
> @@ -72,8 +82,15 @@
> #define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_INSTR_PREFETCH_SHIFT 29
> #define L2X0_AUX_CTRL_EARLY_BRESP_SHIFT 30
>
> +#define L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_SETUP_SHIFT 0
> +#define L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_RD_SHIFT 4
> +#define L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_WR_SHIFT 8
> +
> +#define L2X0_ADDR_FILTER_EN 1
> +
> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> extern void __init l2x0_init(void __iomem *base, __u32 aux_val, __u32 aux_mask);
> +extern int l2x0_of_init(__u32 aux_val, __u32 aux_mask);
> #endif
>
> #endif
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> index ef59099..649be84 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> @@ -16,9 +16,12 @@
> * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
> */
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>
> #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> #include <asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h>
> @@ -344,3 +347,120 @@ void __init l2x0_init(void __iomem *base, __u32 aux_val, __u32 aux_mask)
> printk(KERN_INFO "l2x0: %d ways, CACHE_ID 0x%08x, AUX_CTRL 0x%08x, Cache size: %d B\n",
> ways, cache_id, aux, l2x0_size);
> }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +static const struct of_device_id l2x0_ids[] __initconst = {
> + { .compatible = "arm,pl310-cache" },
> + { .compatible = "arm,l220-cache" },
> + { .compatible = "arm,l210-cache" },
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static void __init l2x0_of_set_address_filter(const struct device_node *np)
> +{
> + u32 start, end;
> + const u32 *prop;
> + int len;
> + int is_pl310 = of_device_is_compatible(np, "arm,pl310-cache");
> +
> + if (!is_pl310 || (readl_relaxed(l2x0_base + L2X0_CTRL) & 1))
> + return;
> +
> + prop = of_get_property(np, "filter-ranges", &len);
> + if (!prop || (len != (2 * sizeof(prop))))
> + return;
> +
> + start = be32_to_cpup(prop++) | L2X0_ADDR_FILTER_EN;
> + end = be32_to_cpup(prop++);
> + writel_relaxed(end, l2x0_base + L2X0_ADDR_FILTER_END);
> + writel_relaxed(start, l2x0_base + L2X0_ADDR_FILTER_START);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init l2x0_of_set_ram_timings(const struct device_node *np,
> + __u32 *aux_val, __u32 *aux_mask)
> +{
> + u32 data_rd = 0, data_wr = 0, data_setup = 0;
> + u32 tag_rd = 0, tag_wr = 0, tag_setup = 0;
> + u32 dirty = 0;
> + const u32 *prop;
const __be32 *prop;
> + int len;
> + int is_pl310 = of_device_is_compatible(np, "arm,pl310-cache");
> +
> + if (readl_relaxed(l2x0_base + L2X0_CTRL) & 1)
> + return;
> +
> + prop = of_get_property(np, "data-latency", &len);
> + if (prop && (len == (3 * sizeof(prop)))) {
> + data_rd = be32_to_cpup(prop++);
> + data_wr = be32_to_cpup(prop++);
> + data_setup = be32_to_cpup(prop);
> + }
I wonder if it would be useful to have an of_property_read_u32array() helper?
> +
> + prop = of_get_property(np, "tag-latency", &len);
> + if (prop && (len == (3 * sizeof(prop)))) {
> + tag_rd = be32_to_cpup(prop++);
> + tag_wr = be32_to_cpup(prop++);
> + tag_setup = be32_to_cpup(prop);
> + }
> +
> + prop = of_get_property(np, "dirty-latency", &len);
> + if (prop && (len == sizeof(prop)))
> + dirty = be32_to_cpup(prop);
of_property_read_u32()
> +
> + if (is_pl310 && tag_wr && tag_rd && tag_setup)
> + writel_relaxed(
> + (--tag_wr << L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_WR_SHIFT) |
> + (--tag_rd << L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_RD_SHIFT) |
> + (--tag_setup << L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_SETUP_SHIFT),
tag_wr, tag_rd and tag_setup are only used once, so the self decrement
is confusing. I'd rather see simply '(tag_rw - 1) << ...'
> + l2x0_base + L2X0_TAG_LATENCY_CTRL);
> +
> + if (is_pl310 && data_wr && data_rd && data_setup)
> + writel_relaxed(
> + (--data_wr << L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_WR_SHIFT) |
> + (--data_rd << L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_RD_SHIFT) |
> + (--data_setup << L2X0_LATENCY_CTRL_SETUP_SHIFT),
> + l2x0_base + L2X0_TAG_LATENCY_CTRL);
Hmmm, there are 2 sets of if() blocks here. One for is_pl310, and one
for !is_pl310. Instead of testing is_pl310 over and over, it would
make more sense to me to do:
if (is_pl310) {
if (tag_wr && tag_rd && tag_setup)
...
if (data_wr && data_wr && data_setup)
...
} else {
if (tag_rd)
...
if (data_rd)
...
...
}
> +
> + if (!is_pl310 && tag_rd) {
> + *aux_val &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_TAG_LATENCY_MASK;
> + *aux_val |= --tag_rd << L2X0_AUX_CTRL_TAG_LATENCY_SHIFT;
> + *aux_mask &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_TAG_LATENCY_MASK;
> + }
> +
> + if (!is_pl310 && data_rd) {
> + *aux_val &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_RD_LATENCY_MASK;
> + *aux_val |= --data_rd << L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_RD_LATENCY_SHIFT;
> + *aux_mask &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_RD_LATENCY_MASK;
> + }
> +
> + if (!is_pl310 && data_wr) {
> + *aux_val &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_WR_LATENCY_MASK;
> + *aux_val |= --data_wr << L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_WR_LATENCY_SHIFT;
> + *aux_mask &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DATA_WR_LATENCY_MASK;
> + }
> +
> + if (!is_pl310 && dirty) {
> + *aux_val &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DIRTY_LATENCY_MASK;
> + *aux_val |= --dirty << L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DIRTY_LATENCY_SHIFT;
> + *aux_mask &= ~L2X0_AUX_CTRL_DIRTY_LATENCY_MASK;
> + }
Something about this just feels suboptimal. It's essentially the
exact same block of code 4 times with different values, masks and
shifts. It may be best the way it is, but I do wonder if it could be
made to look nicer.
> +}
> +
> +int __init l2x0_of_init(__u32 aux_val, __u32 aux_mask)
> +{
> + struct device_node *np;
> + void __iomem *l2_base;
> +
> + np = of_find_matching_node(NULL, l2x0_ids);
> + if (!np)
> + return -ENODEV;
> + l2_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
> + if (!l2_base)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + l2x0_of_set_address_filter(np);
> + l2x0_of_set_ram_timings(np, &aux_val, &aux_mask);
> + l2x0_init(l2_base, aux_val, aux_mask);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list