Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/setup_64: Set cache-line-size based on cache-block-size

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> writes:
> On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 21:43 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> writes:
>> > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 16:18 +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
>> > > If {i,d}-cache-block-size is set and {i,d}-cache-line-size is
>> > > not,
>> > > use
>> > > the block-size value for both. Per the devicetree spec cache-
>> > > line-
>> > > size
>> > > is only needed if it differs from the block size.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
>> > > ---
>> > > It looks as though the bsizep = lsizep is not required per the
>> > > spec
>> > > but it's
>> > > probably safer to retain it.
>> > > 
>> > > Changes in v2:
>> > > - Scott pointed out that u-boot should be filling in the cache
>> > > properties
>> > >   (which it does). But it does not specify a cache-line-size
>> > > because
>> > > it
>> > >   provides a cache-block-size and the spec says you don't have to
>> > > if
>> > > they are
>> > >   the same. So the error is in the parsing not in the devicetree
>> > > itself.
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > Ping? This thread went kind of quiet.
>> 
>> I replied in the other thread:
>> 
>>   
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/87369xx99u.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au/
>> 
>> But then the merge window happened which is a busy time.
>> 
>
> Yeah I figured that was the case.
>
>> What I'd really like is a v3 that incorporates the info I wrote in
>> the
>> other thread and a Fixes tag.
>> 
>> If you feel like doing that, that would be great. Otherwise I'll do
>> it
>> tomorrow.
>
> I'll rebase against Linus's tree and have a go a adding some more words
> to the commit message.

Thanks.

cheers