[PATCH 15/16] powerpc/mm: Rework usage of _PAGE_COHERENT/NO_CACHE/GUARDED

[Kumar Gala]

On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

>
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_44x
>>> -#define _PAGE_BASE	(_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_ACCESSED | _PAGE_GUARDED)
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_STD_MMU)
>>> +#define _PAGE_BASE	(_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_ACCESSED |  
>>> _PAGE_COHERENT)
>>> #else
>>> #define _PAGE_BASE	(_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_ACCESSED)
>>> #endif
>>> +#define _PAGE_BASE_NC	(_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_ACCESSED)
>>> +
>>> #define _PAGE_WRENABLE	(_PAGE_RW | _PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_HWWRITE)
>>> #define _PAGE_KERNEL	(_PAGE_BASE | _PAGE_SHARED | _PAGE_WRENABLE)
>>> +#define _PAGE_KERNEL_NC	(_PAGE_BASE_NC | _PAGE_SHARED |
>>> _PAGE_WRENABLE | _PAGE_NO_CACHE)
>>
>> Either _BASE_NC should have _PAGE_NO_CACHE set or you need a  
>> different
>> name here for _PAGE_KERNEL_NC
>
> Not sure what you mean.. _PAGE_KERNEL_NC has no cache in it, and
> _BASE_NC doesn't ... oh well.. because it's the base type used by
> KERNEL_NC :-) I agree it's not the clearest, I can just move
> _PAGE_NO_CACHE to _PAGE_BASE_NC, that will make it clearer I suppose,
> but I don't see anything being actually incorrect, or do I miss
> something ?
>
>> I think we should do:
>>
>> #define _PAGE_KERNEL_NC	(_PAGE_BASE_NC | _PAGE_SHARED |  
>> _PAGE_WRENABLE)
>> #define _PAGE_IO	(_PAGE_KERNEL_NC | _PAGE_NO_CACHE | _PAGE_GUARDED)
>
> I don't understand.... _PAGE_KERNEL_NC is supposedly non caccheable, I
> should probably move _PAGE_NO_CACHE to _PAGE_BASE_NC...

I just want _NC to mean the same thing.  As you say, just set  
_PAGE_NO_CACHE in _PAGE_BASE_NC and we should be good.

>>> +#define _PAGE_CACHE_CTL	(_PAGE_COHERENT | _PAGE_COHERENT |
>>> _PAGE_COHERENT | \
>>> + 			 _PAGE_WRITETHRU)
>>
>> we like coherent so much we set it thrice?
>
> Nice :-) Yeah, it should be _COHERENT, _GUARDED, _NO_CACHE and
> _WRITETHRU, I'll fix that.

was guessing as much.

- k