[2/3] cacheinfo: Check cache properties are present in DT

  If a Device Tree (DT) is used, the presence of cache properties is
assumed. Not finding any is not considered. For arm64 platforms,
cache information can be fetched from the clidr_el1 register.
Checking whether cache information is available in the DT
allows to switch to using clidr_el1.

init_of_cache_level()
\-of_count_cache_leaves()
will assume there a 2 cache leaves (L1 data/instruction caches), which
can be different from clidr_el1 information.

cache_setup_of_node() tries to read cache properties in the DT.
If there are none, this is considered a success. Knowing no
information was available would allow to switch to using clidr_el1.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
---
 drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
  

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:59:50PM +0200, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> If a Device Tree (DT) is used, the presence of cache properties is
> assumed. Not finding any is not considered. For arm64 platforms,
> cache information can be fetched from the clidr_el1 register.
> Checking whether cache information is available in the DT
> allows to switch to using clidr_el1.
> 
> init_of_cache_level()
> \-of_count_cache_leaves()
> will assume there a 2 cache leaves (L1 data/instruction caches), which
> can be different from clidr_el1 information.
> 
> cache_setup_of_node() tries to read cache properties in the DT.
> If there are none, this is considered a success. Knowing no
> information was available would allow to switch to using clidr_el1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>

> +static bool of_check_cache_nodes(struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +	struct device_node *next;
> +
> +	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size")   ||
> +	    of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size") ||
> +	    of_property_read_bool(np, "d-cache-size") ||
> +	    of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-unified"))
> +		return true;
> +

Rob's been purging use of the of_property_read family of functions
recently [1], should this use of_property_present() instead?

Cheers,
Conor.

1 - https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=Use+of_property_present%28%29+for+testing+DT+property+presence+f%3Arob
  

Hey Pierre,

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:59:50PM +0200, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> If a Device Tree (DT) is used, the presence of cache properties is
> assumed. Not finding any is not considered. For arm64 platforms,
> cache information can be fetched from the clidr_el1 register.
> Checking whether cache information is available in the DT
> allows to switch to using clidr_el1.
> 
> init_of_cache_level()
> \-of_count_cache_leaves()
> will assume there a 2 cache leaves (L1 data/instruction caches), which
> can be different from clidr_el1 information.
> 
> cache_setup_of_node() tries to read cache properties in the DT.
> If there are none, this is considered a success. Knowing no
> information was available would allow to switch to using clidr_el1.
>

Alex reported seeing a bunch of messages in his boot log in QEMU since
-rc1 which appears to be the fault of, as far as I can tell, e0df442ee49
("cacheinfo: Check 'cache-unified' property to count cache leaves")
like:
cacheinfo: Unable to detect cache hierarchy for CPU N

The RISC-V QEMU virt machine doesn't define any cache properties of any
sort in the dtb, and unlike the arm64 virt machine I tried (a72) doesn't
have some registers that cache info is discoverable from.
When we call of_count_cache_leaves() from init_of_cache_level() and
there are of course no reasons to increment leaves, we hit the return 2
case you mention above, setting num_leaves to 2.

As you mention, when we hit cache_setup_of_node(), levels is not going
to be set to one, so we trigger the condition (this_leaf->level != 1)
and, as there are no cache nodes, break out of the loop without
incrementing index. Index is therefore less than 2, and thus we return
-ENOENT.
This is of course propagated back out to detect_cache_attributes() and
triggers the "Unable to detect..." printout :(

With this patch(set), the spurious error prints go away, but we are left
with a "Early cacheinfo failed, ret = -22" which will need to be fixed.

So I think this also needs to be:
Fixes: de0df442ee49 ("cacheinfo: Check 'cache-unified' property to count cache leaves")

Probably also needs a:
Reported-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
since he's found an actual, rather than theoretical, problem!

Cheers,
Conor.

> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> index 4ca117574af1..5b0edf2d5da8 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ bool last_level_cache_is_shared(unsigned int cpu_x, unsigned int cpu_y)
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +
> +static bool of_check_cache_nodes(struct device_node *np);
> +
>  /* OF properties to query for a given cache type */
>  struct cache_type_info {
>  	const char *size_prop;
> @@ -205,6 +208,11 @@ static int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu)
>  		return -ENOENT;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!of_check_cache_nodes(np)) {
> +		of_node_put(np);
> +		return -ENOENT;
> +	}
> +
>  	prev = np;
>  
>  	while (index < cache_leaves(cpu)) {
> @@ -229,6 +237,25 @@ static int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static bool of_check_cache_nodes(struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +	struct device_node *next;
> +
> +	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size")   ||
> +	    of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size") ||
> +	    of_property_read_bool(np, "d-cache-size") ||
> +	    of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-unified"))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	next = of_find_next_cache_node(np);
> +	if (next) {
> +		of_node_put(next);
> +		return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  static int of_count_cache_leaves(struct device_node *np)
>  {
>  	unsigned int leaves = 0;
> @@ -260,6 +287,9 @@ int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
>  	struct device_node *prev = NULL;
>  	unsigned int levels = 0, leaves, level;
>  
> +	if (!of_check_cache_nodes(np))
> +		goto err_out;
> +
>  	leaves = of_count_cache_leaves(np);
>  	if (leaves > 0)
>  		levels = 1;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>
  

Hello Conor,

On 4/4/23 21:29, Conor Dooley wrote:
> Hey Pierre,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:59:50PM +0200, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>> If a Device Tree (DT) is used, the presence of cache properties is
>> assumed. Not finding any is not considered. For arm64 platforms,
>> cache information can be fetched from the clidr_el1 register.
>> Checking whether cache information is available in the DT
>> allows to switch to using clidr_el1.
>>
>> init_of_cache_level()
>> \-of_count_cache_leaves()
>> will assume there a 2 cache leaves (L1 data/instruction caches), which
>> can be different from clidr_el1 information.
>>
>> cache_setup_of_node() tries to read cache properties in the DT.
>> If there are none, this is considered a success. Knowing no
>> information was available would allow to switch to using clidr_el1.
>>
> 
> Alex reported seeing a bunch of messages in his boot log in QEMU since
> -rc1 which appears to be the fault of, as far as I can tell, e0df442ee49
> ("cacheinfo: Check 'cache-unified' property to count cache leaves")
> like:
> cacheinfo: Unable to detect cache hierarchy for CPU N
> 
> The RISC-V QEMU virt machine doesn't define any cache properties of any
> sort in the dtb, and unlike the arm64 virt machine I tried (a72) doesn't
> have some registers that cache info is discoverable from.
> When we call of_count_cache_leaves() from init_of_cache_level() and
> there are of course no reasons to increment leaves, we hit the return 2
> case you mention above, setting num_leaves to 2.
> 
> As you mention, when we hit cache_setup_of_node(), levels is not going
> to be set to one, so we trigger the condition (this_leaf->level != 1)
> and, as there are no cache nodes, break out of the loop without
> incrementing index. Index is therefore less than 2, and thus we return
> -ENOENT.
> This is of course propagated back out to detect_cache_attributes() and
> triggers the "Unable to detect..." printout :(
> 
> With this patch(set), the spurious error prints go away, but we are left
> with a "Early cacheinfo failed, ret = -22" which will need to be fixed.
> 
> So I think this also needs to be:
> Fixes: de0df442ee49 ("cacheinfo: Check 'cache-unified' property to count cache leaves")
> 
> Probably also needs a:
> Reported-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
> since he's found an actual, rather than theoretical, problem!

Ok yes indeed, I will do this and the other comments you made,

Regards,
Pierre

> 
> Cheers,
> Conor.
>