Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:29:20 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To:     "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
CC:     <conor@kernel.org>, <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
        <heiko@sntech.de>, <guoren@kernel.org>, <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>,
        <nathan@kernel.org>, <atishp@rivosinc.com>,
        <apatel@ventanamicro.com>, <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>,
        <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] soc: renesas: Add L2 cache management for
 RZ/Five SoC
Message-ID: <Yz1cgDOCdY41ip0y@wendy>
References: <20221003223222.448551-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <20221003223222.448551-3-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <YzxwoELNBctbhjJb@spud>
 <CA+V-a8tgvF16vduoQ+ZbzTpRJUmCnN-GPQs5G8AqMOXbnznwHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F0B6C609-6C39-4080-8F07-7FEFFAFEA993@kernel.org>
 <5254a42c-9233-6f9a-eff8-33324a184d20@microchip.com>
 <CA+V-a8tS=vsTW=SvGeAjy_M9C=ZwtaWHYhdBK=XV0M9T_c3b5A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+V-a8tS=vsTW=SvGeAjy_M9C=ZwtaWHYhdBK=XV0M9T_c3b5A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 11:20:40AM +0100, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/10/2022 09:58, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > >
> > > On 5 October 2022 09:44:56 IST, "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi Conor,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the review.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:43 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> +static void cpu_dcache_wb_range(unsigned long start,
> > >>>> +                             unsigned long end,
> > >>>> +                             int line_size)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> +     bool ucctl_ok = false;
> > >>>> +     unsigned long pa;
> > >>>> +     int mhartid = 0;
> > >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >>>> +     mhartid = smp_processor_id();
> > >>>> +#endif
> > >>>
> > >>> Won't this produce complaints from your if you compile with CONFIG_SMP
> > >>> set?
> > >>>
> > >> No I dont see a build issue with SMP enabled, do you see any reason
> > >> why it should fail?
> > >
> > > Not fail but complain about the unused variable.
> > >
> >
> > Not unused variable, sorry but the unused 0 that it was initialised with*
> 
> No, it doesn't complain (I dont think compilers complain of such
> unused assignments, maybe I'm wrong). BTW I am using GCC 9.4.0. Do you
> think I need to update it?

Maybe it's sparse that generates those warnings, I never know which it
is...