[U-Boot] i.MX51: FEC: Cache coherency problem?

[David Jander]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:21:12 +0200
Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> Le 19/07/2011 09:44, David Jander a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Stefano,
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:55:05 +0200
> > Stefano Babic<sbabic at denx.de>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/18/2011 05:18 PM, David Jander wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >>> What is going on here? Why did this work with caches enabled before??
> >>
> >> I think cache was always disabled..
> >
> > I had even L2-caches enabled in u-boot (copied/adapted some code from OMAP
> > cache.S), and called i/dcache_enable() from board code like this:
> >
> > int board_late_init(void)
> > {
> >          power_init();
> >          probe_board_type();
> >          icache_enable();
> >          dcache_enable();
> >
> >          return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Is there a reason this wouldn't have worked before?
> >
> > Suppose it didn't. Does that mean we need to use the MMU to properly mark
> > regions of register space and specially FEC BD's as not-cached? Or do we
> > need to flash caches manually each time such a memory region is accessed?
> > I am kind of a CPU-speed-junkie, so I am not sure I want to live without
> > caches enabled in u-boot ;-)
> 
> You would have to flush (before sending packets / starting external 
> memory-to-device DMA) and invalidate (before reading received packets / 
> after external device-to-memory DMA is done); using MMU and mapping 
> cached/non-cached areas is IMO overkill, and will hurt CPU accesses to 
> the xmit/receive buffers and descriptors.

So, you say actually what I did while exploring the problem would have been a
correct way of solving this problem?

Like this:

587         flush_cache(&fec->tbd_base[fec->tbd_index], 4);
588         fec_tx_task_enable(fec);
589         flush_dcache_all();
590 
591         /*
592          * wait until frame is sent .
593          */
594         while (readw(&fec->tbd_base[fec->tbd_index].status) & FEC_TBD_READY) {
595                 udelay(1);
596         }

I am still not sure why I need line 587 above.
Would a patch to fec_mxc.c that does the necessary cache handwork be
acceptable for u-boot?

Best regards,

-- 
David Jander
Protonic Holland.