dcache BUG()

[Dan Malek]

Gabriel Paubert wrote:

> Why not ? I'd like to find an explanation of a possible failure mode.

Because the 4xx sucks........unlike other PowerPC processors, it
doesn't appear to use any of the reservation address to break or
match a lwarx.

> All PPC systems have always used a simple store for atomic_set. If it does
> not work, there is something seriously wrong, perhaps even a hardware bug.

Yeah, it does sound kind of broken, but then the 4xx isn't any
shining example of something that follows the PowerPC architecture.
Other PowerPCs have a reservation granularity, so _any_ store operation
within this will cause the reservation to be broken.  The 4xx seems
to have no granularity, and further has inverted the logic.  Without
granularity _any_ store operation anywhere should break the reservation,
but in this case no store operation will break it.....very bad.

What can happen is a lwarx to an address, in some other context a
simple store to that address (no reservation broken) then a subsequent
stwcx. to the address will appear successful.  Hmmmm.....several
ways to fix it, I wonder what will work best.....


	-- Dan

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/