| Message ID | 20190712034904.5747-2-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 1a85cb4b0d2984a6d1afb03e2038855d654c9892 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | EDAC drivers for Armada XP L2 and DDR | expand |
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 03:48:57PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > From: Jan Luebbe <jlu@pengutronix.de> > > The macro name is too generic, so add a AURORA_ prefix. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Luebbe <jlu@pengutronix.de> > Reviewed-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> > --- > arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h | 2 +- I can't apply this series - this file does not exist in my tree, and from what git tells me, it never has existed. Maybe it's in someone elses tree? > arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > index c86124769831..dc5c479ec4c3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ > #define AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_THRO_POLICY \ > (2 << AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_POLICY_OFFSET) > > -#define MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 > +#define AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 > > #define AURORA_WAY_SIZE_SHIFT 2 > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > index 428d08718107..83b733a1f1e6 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > @@ -1352,8 +1352,8 @@ static unsigned long aurora_range_end(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > * since cache range operations stall the CPU pipeline > * until completion. > */ > - if (end > start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE) > - end = start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE; > + if (end > start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE) > + end = start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE; > > /* > * Cache range operations can't straddle a page boundary. > -- > 2.22.0 > >
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:46:21AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 03:48:57PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > > From: Jan Luebbe <jlu@pengutronix.de> > > > > The macro name is too generic, so add a AURORA_ prefix. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Luebbe <jlu@pengutronix.de> > > Reviewed-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> > > --- > > arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h | 2 +- > > I can't apply this series - this file does not exist in my tree, and > from what git tells me, it never has existed. Maybe it's in someone > elses tree? I think the file is in my tree, just as arch/arm/mm/cache-aurora-l2.h which is where it has been since it was originally submitted in 2012. > > > arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c | 4 ++-- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > > index c86124769831..dc5c479ec4c3 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ > > #define AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_THRO_POLICY \ > > (2 << AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_POLICY_OFFSET) > > > > -#define MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 > > +#define AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 > > > > #define AURORA_WAY_SIZE_SHIFT 2 > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > index 428d08718107..83b733a1f1e6 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > @@ -1352,8 +1352,8 @@ static unsigned long aurora_range_end(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > * since cache range operations stall the CPU pipeline > > * until completion. > > */ > > - if (end > start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE) > > - end = start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE; > > + if (end > start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE) > > + end = start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE; > > > > /* > > * Cache range operations can't straddle a page boundary. > > -- > > 2.22.0 > > > > > > -- > RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up > According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
Hi Russell, On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 11:50 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:46:21AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux > admin wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 03:48:57PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > > > From: Jan Luebbe <jlu@pengutronix.de> > > > > > > The macro name is too generic, so add a AURORA_ prefix. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Luebbe <jlu@pengutronix.de> > > > Reviewed-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h | 2 +- > > > > I can't apply this series - this file does not exist in my tree, > > and > > from what git tells me, it never has existed. Maybe it's in > > someone > > elses tree? > > I think the file is in my tree, just as arch/arm/mm/cache-aurora-l2.h > which is where it has been since it was originally submitted in 2012. > Sorry there is a missing patch that moves it next to the hardware/cache-*.h. I can send the missing patch or I can re-send the whole series. If I do send the whole series do you want me to rebase it against a particular tag/tree? > > > > > arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c | 4 ++-- > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > > > b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > > > index c86124769831..dc5c479ec4c3 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h > > > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ > > > #define AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_THRO_POLICY \ > > > (2 << AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_POLICY_OFFSET) > > > > > > -#define MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 > > > +#define AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 > > > > > > #define AURORA_WAY_SIZE_SHIFT 2 > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > > index 428d08718107..83b733a1f1e6 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c > > > @@ -1352,8 +1352,8 @@ static unsigned long > > > aurora_range_end(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > > * since cache range operations stall the CPU pipeline > > > * until completion. > > > */ > > > - if (end > start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE) > > > - end = start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE; > > > + if (end > start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE) > > > + end = start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE; > > > > > > /* > > > * Cache range operations can't straddle a page boundary. > > > -- > > > 2.22.0 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down > > 622kbps up > > According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up > >
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:46:44AM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 11:50 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:46:21AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux > > admin wrote: > > > I can't apply this series - this file does not exist in my tree, > > > and > > > from what git tells me, it never has existed. Maybe it's in > > > someone > > > elses tree? > > > > I think the file is in my tree, just as arch/arm/mm/cache-aurora-l2.h > > which is where it has been since it was originally submitted in 2012. > > Sorry there is a missing patch that moves it next to the > hardware/cache-*.h. I can send the missing patch or I can re-send the > whole series. If I do send the whole series do you want me to rebase it > against a particular tag/tree? Just send the single patch to the patch tracker - having it against 5.3-rc is fine (I don't think anything has changed for a long time with that file.) Thanks.
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 10:13 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:46:44AM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 11:50 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:46:21AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux > > > admin wrote: > > > > I can't apply this series - this file does not exist in my tree, > > > > and > > > > from what git tells me, it never has existed. Maybe it's in > > > > someone > > > > elses tree? > > > > > > I think the file is in my tree, just as arch/arm/mm/cache-aurora-l2.h > > > which is where it has been since it was originally submitted in 2012. > > > > Sorry there is a missing patch that moves it next to the > > hardware/cache-*.h. I can send the missing patch or I can re-send the > > whole series. If I do send the whole series do you want me to rebase it > > against a particular tag/tree? > > Just send the single patch to the patch tracker - having it against > 5.3-rc is fine (I don't think anything has changed for a long time > with that file.) Done https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=8902/1 I'm still not entirely sure what to put for the KernelVersion tag. In hindsight think I misinterpreted your comment above and set it to 5.3rc (where you meant a series based on 5.3-rcX should apply cleanly). It probably should have been next or master because it's way past the merge window for 5.3.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:56:05PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 10:13 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > wrote: > > Just send the single patch to the patch tracker - having it against > > 5.3-rc is fine (I don't think anything has changed for a long time > > with that file.) > > Done > https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=8902/1 > > I'm still not entirely sure what to put for the KernelVersion tag. In > hindsight think I misinterpreted your comment above and set it to 5.3rc > (where you meant a series based on 5.3-rcX should apply cleanly). It > probably should have been next or master because it's way past the > merge window for 5.3. Think about it as "which kernel version was _this_ patch generated against" - it's a guide for me to know which kernel version it should be applied to. The nearest Linus release (rc or final) is generally sufficient. If it doesn't apply to my current base, then I might check out that version, apply it there, and then merge it in, resolving any conflicts during the merge. It started off with a different purpose: when we had the older development system, such as the 2.x series kernels, we would have even x being the current stable kernels, and concurrently we'd also have x+1 as the development series. When someone sent me a patch back then, it was important to know which kernel series it was meant for. I decided not to get rid of it because it provides useful information when patches don't apply, and gives more options than me just discarding the patch with a comment saying it doesn't apply.
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 22:07 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:56:05PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 10:13 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > wrote: > > > Just send the single patch to the patch tracker - having it against > > > 5.3-rc is fine (I don't think anything has changed for a long time > > > with that file.) > > > > Done > > https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=8902/1 > > > > I'm still not entirely sure what to put for the KernelVersion tag. In > > hindsight think I misinterpreted your comment above and set it to 5.3rc > > (where you meant a series based on 5.3-rcX should apply cleanly). It > > probably should have been next or master because it's way past the > > merge window for 5.3. > > Think about it as "which kernel version was _this_ patch generated > against" - it's a guide for me to know which kernel version it > should be applied to. The nearest Linus release (rc or final) is > generally sufficient. > > If it doesn't apply to my current base, then I might check out that > version, apply it there, and then merge it in, resolving any > conflicts during the merge. > > It started off with a different purpose: when we had the older > development system, such as the 2.x series kernels, we would have > even x being the current stable kernels, and concurrently we'd > also have x+1 as the development series. When someone sent me a > patch back then, it was important to know which kernel series it > was meant for. > > I decided not to get rid of it because it provides useful > information when patches don't apply, and gives more options > than me just discarding the patch with a comment saying it > doesn't apply. > Thanks for the info. So 5.3-rc is not as wrong as I thought it was. One could even summarize the above as. git format-patch --add-header \ "KernelVersion: $(git describe --abbrev=0 HEAD)"
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 09:13:11PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 22:07 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:56:05PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 10:13 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > wrote: > > > > Just send the single patch to the patch tracker - having it against > > > > 5.3-rc is fine (I don't think anything has changed for a long time > > > > with that file.) > > > > > > Done > > > https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=8902/1 > > > > > > I'm still not entirely sure what to put for the KernelVersion tag. In > > > hindsight think I misinterpreted your comment above and set it to 5.3rc > > > (where you meant a series based on 5.3-rcX should apply cleanly). It > > > probably should have been next or master because it's way past the > > > merge window for 5.3. > > > > Think about it as "which kernel version was _this_ patch generated > > against" - it's a guide for me to know which kernel version it > > should be applied to. The nearest Linus release (rc or final) is > > generally sufficient. > > > > If it doesn't apply to my current base, then I might check out that > > version, apply it there, and then merge it in, resolving any > > conflicts during the merge. > > > > It started off with a different purpose: when we had the older > > development system, such as the 2.x series kernels, we would have > > even x being the current stable kernels, and concurrently we'd > > also have x+1 as the development series. When someone sent me a > > patch back then, it was important to know which kernel series it > > was meant for. > > > > I decided not to get rid of it because it provides useful > > information when patches don't apply, and gives more options > > than me just discarding the patch with a comment saying it > > doesn't apply. > > > > Thanks for the info. So 5.3-rc is not as wrong as I thought it was. > > One could even summarize the above as. > > git format-patch --add-header \ > "KernelVersion: $(git describe --abbrev=0 HEAD)" Yep, I should probably update the patch system help with that, and actually strip out everything about the old diff and patch way of working.
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h index c86124769831..dc5c479ec4c3 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/cache-aurora-l2.h @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ #define AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_THRO_POLICY \ (2 << AURORA_ACR_FORCE_WRITE_POLICY_OFFSET) -#define MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 +#define AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE 1024 #define AURORA_WAY_SIZE_SHIFT 2 diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c index 428d08718107..83b733a1f1e6 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c @@ -1352,8 +1352,8 @@ static unsigned long aurora_range_end(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) * since cache range operations stall the CPU pipeline * until completion. */ - if (end > start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE) - end = start + MAX_RANGE_SIZE; + if (end > start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE) + end = start + AURORA_MAX_RANGE_SIZE; /* * Cache range operations can't straddle a page boundary.