| Message ID | 20190813154747.24256-3-hch@lst.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/15] irqchip/sifive-plic: set max threshold for ignored handlers | expand |
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Switch to our own constant for the satp register instead of using > the old name from a legacy version of the privileged spec. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> Didn't you want us to replace this with Bin Meng's patch? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20190807151316.GB16432@infradead.org/ If so, probably best just to drop this one and state a dependency. - Paul
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:36:23AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Switch to our own constant for the satp register instead of using > > the old name from a legacy version of the privileged spec. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > > Didn't you want us to replace this with Bin Meng's patch? > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20190807151316.GB16432@infradead.org/ > > If so, probably best just to drop this one and state a dependency. Either way is fine with me. But until you have a branch with either one applied I'm going to keep resending my patch, as random dependencies on uncommitted patches don't work.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:36:23AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > Switch to our own constant for the satp register instead of using > > > the old name from a legacy version of the privileged spec. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > > Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > > > > Didn't you want us to replace this with Bin Meng's patch? > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20190807151316.GB16432@infradead.org/ > > > > If so, probably best just to drop this one and state a dependency. > > Either way is fine with me. But until you have a branch with > either one applied I'm going to keep resending my patch, as random > dependencies on uncommitted patches don't work. If you're going to resend a patch, it's better to resend the other one that you've explicitly endorsed in favor of your own. - Paul
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Switch to our own constant for the satp register instead of using > the old name from a legacy version of the privileged spec. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> Dropping this one in favor of Bin Meng's patch per https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20190807151316.GB16432@infradead.org/ - Paul
diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/context.c b/arch/riscv/mm/context.c index 89ceb3cbe218..beeb5d7f92ea 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/mm/context.c +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/context.c @@ -57,12 +57,7 @@ void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next, cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev)); cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next)); - /* - * Use the old spbtr name instead of using the current satp - * name to support binutils 2.29 which doesn't know about the - * privileged ISA 1.10 yet. - */ - csr_write(sptbr, virt_to_pfn(next->pgd) | SATP_MODE); + csr_write(CSR_SATP, virt_to_pfn(next->pgd) | SATP_MODE); local_flush_tlb_all(); flush_icache_deferred(next);