Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 02:58:23 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86, ARM, PARISC, PPC, MIPS and Sparc folks please run this
Message-ID: <20030901015823.GD31531@mail.jlokier.co.uk>
References: <20030829053510.GA12663@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030901002412.GA16537@linux-sh.org> <20030901003750.GB31531@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030901010002.GA19430@linux-sh.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030901010002.GA19430@linux-sh.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 904
Lines: 26

Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 01:37:50AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > sh (VIPT cache):
> > > 
> > > Test separation: 4096 bytes: FAIL - cache not coherent
> > > Test separation: 8192 bytes: FAIL - cache not coherent
> > > Test separation: 16384 bytes: pass
> > 
> > A VIVT cache can do that, but I think a VIPT cache should always be coherent.
> > Do I misunderstand?
> > 
> There's nothing stating that VIPT == automatic coherency,
> as is obviously the case for sh, where we are completely VIPT, but
> are also non coherent.

Ah.  A VIPT cache needn't be coherent with itself if isn't coherent
w.r.t. external devices.  Thanks.

-- Jamie


-
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/