From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
To: "Cohen, Eugene" <eugene@hp.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
"edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ArmPlatformPkg: remove EFI_MEMORY_UC attribute from normal memory
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 21:54:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160908205401.GK16080@bivouac.eciton.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AT5PR84MB029171BC03EA00A9EBE43193B4FB0@AT5PR84MB0291.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:37:13PM +0000, Cohen, Eugene wrote:
> > I think this is the right thing to do; Arguably, on the modern ARM
> > architectures, UNCACHEABLE and WRITE_COMBINEABLE are mutually
> > exclusive. I'll discuss with Charles whether we should codify this in
> > the UEFI specification.
>
> Given the corresponding X86 semantics it makes sense for UNCACHEABLE
> to map to Strongly Ordered and WRITE_COMBINEABLE to map to "Normal"
> Uncacheable. It's useful to expose this separately in case a DMA
> common buffer has semantics that require the strongly ordered
> behavior.
>
> Since this is providing a list of capabilities I'm not sure what the
> statement about mutual exclusivity refers to.
Do note the weasly "arguably" I stuck in there.
My point is basically the same as yours, with the clarification that
for purposes of treating something like general-purpose memory,
flagging a location as possible to map as either UNCACHEABLE (ARM:
Strongly Ordered) or WRITE_COMBINEABLE (ARM: Normal uncached)
generally does not make sense.
Regards,
Leif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-08 20:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-08 8:13 [PATCH] ArmPlatformPkg: remove EFI_MEMORY_UC attribute from normal memory Ard Biesheuvel
2016-09-08 9:21 ` Leif Lindholm
2016-09-08 9:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-09-08 17:37 ` Cohen, Eugene
2016-09-08 20:54 ` Leif Lindholm [this message]
2016-09-08 17:33 ` Cohen, Eugene
2016-09-08 17:49 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160908205401.GK16080@bivouac.eciton.net \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox