Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-32799-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240122013510.55788-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com>
 <20240122-boxcar-conical-c728a709aa5c@spud> <CAEEQ3wmX7_VP-YM9NkesAhd+5zetw79AW9bo0YO7KGAeJX4eRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240122-jawline-handling-e190c90ddcfc@spud>
In-Reply-To: <20240122-jawline-handling-e190c90ddcfc@spud>
From: yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:57:49 +0800
Message-ID: <CAEEQ3wn3vuPMG_=6skXcXNvnktv767nAENp=wmXoD_MAi7EuPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: cacheinfo: add init_cache_level()
To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, 
	conor.dooley@microchip.com, robh@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, 
	pierre.gondois@arm.com, suagrfillet@gmail.com, 
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Conor,

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 4:55=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wro=
te:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 04:32:15PM +0800, yunhui cui wrote:
> > Hi Conor,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 4:09=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>=
 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 09:35:10AM +0800, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > > > When cacheinfo_sysfs_init() is executed, the general weak function
> > > > init_cache_level() returns -ENOENT, causing failure to add the "cac=
he"
> > > > node to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/. Implement the init_cache_lev=
el()
> > > > function on RISC-V to fix it.
> > >
> > > If you recall correctly, I asked you to explain how to reproduce this
> > > when you sent the patch.
> >
> > In fact, the reason has been explained in the commit log. As for how
> > to reproduce it, you can check whether there is a "cache" node in
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/ on the riscv platform.
>
> That's the thing - I tried to reproduce this several times and either:
> a) The system had cache information in DT and the directory was
>    created. If I hot unplugged and re-plugged the directory was
>    re-created.
> b) The system had no cache information in DT and the directory was never
>    created.

Indeed, I verified it again, it=E2=80=99s because there is no cache node in
dts, thank you for reminding me.

Thanks,
Yunhui