[PATCH] nvme: Fix cache alignment

[Marek Vasut]

On 2/4/21 5:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
[...]

>>>>>>>> +static void nvme_flush_dcache_range(void *start, unsigned long size)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +       unsigned long s, e;
>>>>>>>> +       nvme_align_dcache_range(start, size, &s, &e);
>>>>>>>> +       flush_dcache_range(s, e);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no good reason for alignment restrictions when it comes to
>>>>>> clean (& invalidate), so there is no need for this wrapper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that on ARM64-specific or is that applicable in general ? The driver
>>>>> is expected to work on any CPU.
>>>>
>>>> Cache clean (actually: cache clean&invalidate) is what happens on evictions
>>>> all of the time, at the cache controller's discretion. So there is no
>>>> real harm in that operation per se. When an eviction happens on a
>>>> *clean* cache line, this is basically just an invalidate, which is also not
>>>> harmful.
>>>>
>>>> There are harmful cases when buffers sharing a cache line are both "just invalidated"
>>>> and "cleaned" at different points in time.
>>>
>>> Is that on ARM64-specific or is that applicable in general ? (the above
>>> does not answer that question)
>>
>> I would say that's a property of *every* write-back cache
>> implementation:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_(computing)#/media/File:Write-back_with_write-allocation.svg
> 
> I've been reading and digesting the thread as it goes, and the only
> thing I do want to chime in on here right now is that yes, U-Boot
> does and will continue to support every CPU that someone wants to run it
> on, and one of the takeaways I see from this thread is we need some
> better documented abstractions around cache, as it's very tricky to get
> right all the time.

Documenting the u-boot cache function behavior precisely is fine by me, 
but that is somewhat separate topic from this bugfix.

So I will ask a simple question -- is there anything blocking this 
bugfix from being applied ?