Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] soc: renesas: Add L2 cache management for RZ/Five SoC

["Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>]

Hi Arnd,

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 10:58 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022, at 7:42 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 11:32:22PM +0100, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/riscv/include/asm/cacheflush.h    |   8 +
> >>  arch/riscv/include/asm/errata_list.h   |   2 +
> >>  arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h           |   1 +
> >>  arch/riscv/mm/dma-noncoherent.c        |  20 ++
> >
> > Stupid question maybe, but I assume you mixed the driver addition and
> > the changes to arch/riscv for the sake of easily creating the RFC?
> >
> >>  drivers/soc/renesas/Makefile           |   4 +
> >>  drivers/soc/renesas/rzf/Makefile       |   3 +
> >>  drivers/soc/renesas/rzf/ax45mp_cache.c | 365 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/soc/renesas/rzf/rzf_sbi.h      |  27 ++
>
> My feeling is that L2 cache behavior should live in arch/riscv
> rather than drivers/soc/, since this is not specific to a SoC
> family but rather the CPU core. I would also expect that the
> actual implementation and DT binding can be shared with
> non-renesas SoCs using the same CPU core.
>
Totally agree it is related to the CPU core and not the SoC. During
the BoF session it was agreed that unratified extensions code shouldnt
go under the arch/riscv. Since the code has vendor specific SBI calls
RISC-V maintainers asked to move it SoC specific so that maintenance
of the code falls under SoC vendors.

Cheers,
Prabhakar