Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934179Ab3E1OE3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2013 10:04:29 -0400 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:45503 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759087Ab3E1OE2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2013 10:04:28 -0400 Message-ID: <51A4B938.7080708@ti.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:33:36 +0530 From: Sricharan R User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Will Deacon CC: Po-Yu Chuang , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "nico@linaro.org" , Catalin Marinas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: map_init_section flushes incorrect pmd References: <1369738100-11152-1-git-send-email-ratbert.chuang@gmail.com> <20130528130502.GA28971@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20130528130502.GA28971@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1680 Lines: 42 On Tuesday 28 May 2013 06:35 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:48:20AM +0100, Po-Yu Chuang wrote: >> This bug was introduced in commit e651eab0. >> Some v4/v5 platforms failed to boot due to this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Po-Yu Chuang >> --- >> arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c >> index e0d8565..19a43f8 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c >> @@ -620,6 +620,8 @@ static void __init map_init_section(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, >> unsigned long end, phys_addr_t phys, >> const struct mem_type *type) >> { >> + pmd_t *p = pmd; >> + >> #ifndef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE >> /* >> * In classic MMU format, puds and pmds are folded in to >> @@ -638,7 +640,7 @@ static void __init map_init_section(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, >> phys += SECTION_SIZE; >> } while (pmd++, addr += SECTION_SIZE, addr != end); >> >> - flush_pmd_entry(pmd); >> + flush_pmd_entry(p); > Wait, shouldn't this flush be *inside* the loop anyway? Otherwise we just > flush the cacheline containing the first pmd. The flushing code could also > flush to PoU instead of PoC for UP ARMv7, but that's an unrelated optimisation. I think in LPAE this loop iterates once and non LPAE twice. So both the entries should be contained in same cache line right ? Regards, Sricharan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/