| Message ID | 1330897580-8931-1-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Anatolij Gustschin |
| Headers | show |
On 03/04/2012 02:46 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson<eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> > Acked-by: Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> > --- > fs/fat/fat.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c > index 1f95eb4..f3c48bb 100644 > --- a/fs/fat/fat.c > +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c > @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ > #include<fat.h> > #include<asm/byteorder.h> > #include<part.h> > +#include<malloc.h> > +#include<linux/compiler.h> > > /* > * Convert a string to lowercase. > @@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ static int disk_read(__u32 block, __u32 nr_blocks, void *buf) > > int fat_register_device (block_dev_desc_t * dev_desc, int part_no) > { > - unsigned char buffer[dev_desc->blksz]; > + ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(unsigned char, buffer, dev_desc->blksz); > <snip> Hi Wolfgang, Have you had a chance to review this patch? Is there another maintainer for fs/fat? Please let me know if you need this updated. There's another patch that was acked by Mike but is otherwise lingering here: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-March/119309.html Both of these are needed before enabling the data cache on i.MX6 when using the FAT filesystem. Regards, Eric
On 13.03.2012 02:24, Eric Nelson wrote: > On 03/04/2012 02:46 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson<eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> >> Acked-by: Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> >> --- >> fs/fat/fat.c | 14 ++++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c >> index 1f95eb4..f3c48bb 100644 >> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c >> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c >> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ >> #include<fat.h> >> #include<asm/byteorder.h> >> #include<part.h> >> +#include<malloc.h> >> +#include<linux/compiler.h> >> >> /* >> * Convert a string to lowercase. >> @@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ static int disk_read(__u32 block, __u32 nr_blocks, >> void *buf) >> >> int fat_register_device (block_dev_desc_t * dev_desc, int part_no) >> { >> - unsigned char buffer[dev_desc->blksz]; >> + ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(unsigned char, buffer, dev_desc->blksz); > > <snip> > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Have you had a chance to review this patch? Is there another > maintainer for fs/fat? > > Please let me know if you need this updated. > > There's another patch that was acked by Mike but is otherwise > lingering here: > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-March/119309.html > > Both of these are needed before enabling the data cache on i.MX6 when > using > the FAT filesystem. Anybody likes to comment/apply this patch? Many thanks! Dirk
Hello Dirk, On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:18:38 +0100 Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 13.03.2012 02:24, Eric Nelson wrote: > > On 03/04/2012 02:46 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson<eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> > >> Acked-by: Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> > >> --- > >> fs/fat/fat.c | 14 ++++++++------ > >> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c > >> index 1f95eb4..f3c48bb 100644 > >> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c > >> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c > >> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ > >> #include<fat.h> > >> #include<asm/byteorder.h> > >> #include<part.h> > >> +#include<malloc.h> > >> +#include<linux/compiler.h> > >> > >> /* > >> * Convert a string to lowercase. > >> @@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ static int disk_read(__u32 block, __u32 nr_blocks, > >> void *buf) > >> > >> int fat_register_device (block_dev_desc_t * dev_desc, int part_no) > >> { > >> - unsigned char buffer[dev_desc->blksz]; > >> + ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(unsigned char, buffer, dev_desc->blksz); > > > <snip> > > > > Hi Wolfgang, > > > > Have you had a chance to review this patch? Is there another > > maintainer for fs/fat? > > > > Please let me know if you need this updated. > > > > There's another patch that was acked by Mike but is otherwise > > lingering here: > > > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-March/119309.html > > > > Both of these are needed before enabling the data cache on i.MX6 when > > using > > the FAT filesystem. > > Anybody likes to comment/apply this patch? Both, this patch and the patch referenced by the above link were submitted when the merge window was closed. So, the patches will probably be applied to next when rc1 is out, unless Wolfgang decides to accept them for coming release. Thanks, Anatolij
On 27.03.2012 16:20, Anatolij Gustschin wrote: > Hello Dirk, > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:18:38 +0100 > Dirk Behme<dirk.behme@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On 13.03.2012 02:24, Eric Nelson wrote: >>> On 03/04/2012 02:46 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson<eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> >>>> Acked-by: Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> >>>> --- >>>> fs/fat/fat.c | 14 ++++++++------ >>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c >>>> index 1f95eb4..f3c48bb 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c >>>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c >>>> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ >>>> #include<fat.h> >>>> #include<asm/byteorder.h> >>>> #include<part.h> >>>> +#include<malloc.h> >>>> +#include<linux/compiler.h> >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * Convert a string to lowercase. >>>> @@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ static int disk_read(__u32 block, __u32 nr_blocks, >>>> void *buf) >>>> >>>> int fat_register_device (block_dev_desc_t * dev_desc, int part_no) >>>> { >>>> - unsigned char buffer[dev_desc->blksz]; >>>> + ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(unsigned char, buffer, dev_desc->blksz); >>> > <snip> >>> >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> Have you had a chance to review this patch? Is there another >>> maintainer for fs/fat? >>> >>> Please let me know if you need this updated. >>> >>> There's another patch that was acked by Mike but is otherwise >>> lingering here: >>> >>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-March/119309.html >>> >>> Both of these are needed before enabling the data cache on i.MX6 when >>> using >>> the FAT filesystem. >> >> Anybody likes to comment/apply this patch? > > Both, this patch and the patch referenced by the above link were > submitted when the merge window was closed. So, the patches will > probably be applied to next when rc1 is out, unless Wolfgang > decides to accept them for coming release. Ok, thanks! Do we have a -next branch for stuff like this, then? Best regards dirk
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:28:21 +0200 Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com> wrote: ... > >> Anybody likes to comment/apply this patch? > > > > Both, this patch and the patch referenced by the above link were > > submitted when the merge window was closed. So, the patches will > > probably be applied to next when rc1 is out, unless Wolfgang > > decides to accept them for coming release. > > Ok, thanks! > > Do we have a -next branch for stuff like this, then? AFAIK, Wolfgang updates u-boot.git next branch when -rc1 is out. After a release this next branch is merged into u-boot.git master. Best regards, Anatolij
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 06:40:33PM +0200, Anatolij Gustschin wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:28:21 +0200 > Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com> wrote: > ... > > >> Anybody likes to comment/apply this patch? > > > > > > Both, this patch and the patch referenced by the above link were > > > submitted when the merge window was closed. So, the patches will > > > probably be applied to next when rc1 is out, unless Wolfgang > > > decides to accept them for coming release. > > > > Ok, thanks! > > > > Do we have a -next branch for stuff like this, then? > > AFAIK, Wolfgang updates u-boot.git next branch when -rc1 is out. After > a release this next branch is merged into u-boot.git master. All of that said, I can't imagine Wolfgang objecting to a u-boot-staging/you/next branch so things aren't lost and there's clear intention to submitters as well.
On 27.03.2012 18:28, Dirk Behme wrote: > On 27.03.2012 16:20, Anatolij Gustschin wrote: >> Hello Dirk, >> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:18:38 +0100 >> Dirk Behme<dirk.behme@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 13.03.2012 02:24, Eric Nelson wrote: >>>> On 03/04/2012 02:46 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson<eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> >>>>> Acked-by: Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> fs/fat/fat.c | 14 ++++++++------ >>>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c >>>>> index 1f95eb4..f3c48bb 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c >>>>> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ >>>>> #include<fat.h> >>>>> #include<asm/byteorder.h> >>>>> #include<part.h> >>>>> +#include<malloc.h> >>>>> +#include<linux/compiler.h> >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> * Convert a string to lowercase. >>>>> @@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ static int disk_read(__u32 block, __u32 nr_blocks, >>>>> void *buf) >>>>> >>>>> int fat_register_device (block_dev_desc_t * dev_desc, int part_no) >>>>> { >>>>> - unsigned char buffer[dev_desc->blksz]; >>>>> + ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(unsigned char, buffer, dev_desc->blksz); >>>> > <snip> >>>> >>>> Hi Wolfgang, >>>> >>>> Have you had a chance to review this patch? Is there another >>>> maintainer for fs/fat? >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you need this updated. >>>> >>>> There's another patch that was acked by Mike but is otherwise >>>> lingering here: >>>> >>>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-March/119309.html >>>> >>>> Both of these are needed before enabling the data cache on i.MX6 when >>>> using >>>> the FAT filesystem. >>> Anybody likes to comment/apply this patch? >> Both, this patch and the patch referenced by the above link were >> submitted when the merge window was closed. So, the patches will >> probably be applied to next when rc1 is out, unless Wolfgang >> decides to accept them for coming release. > > Ok, thanks! > > Do we have a -next branch for stuff like this, then? There should be a -next from Wolfgang for http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/144462/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/151799/ now :) Best regards Dirk
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:35:37 +0200 Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@de.bosch.com> wrote: ... > There should be a -next from Wolfgang for > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/144462/ > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/151799/ Both applied, thanks! Anatolij
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 1f95eb4..f3c48bb 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ #include <fat.h> #include <asm/byteorder.h> #include <part.h> +#include <malloc.h> +#include <linux/compiler.h> /* * Convert a string to lowercase. @@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ static int disk_read(__u32 block, __u32 nr_blocks, void *buf) int fat_register_device (block_dev_desc_t * dev_desc, int part_no) { - unsigned char buffer[dev_desc->blksz]; + ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(unsigned char, buffer, dev_desc->blksz); /* First close any currently found FAT filesystem */ cur_dev = NULL; @@ -293,7 +295,7 @@ get_cluster (fsdata *mydata, __u32 clustnum, __u8 *buffer, return -1; } if (size % mydata->sect_size) { - __u8 tmpbuf[mydata->sect_size]; + ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(__u8, tmpbuf, mydata->sect_size); idx = size / mydata->sect_size; ret = disk_read(startsect + idx, 1, tmpbuf); @@ -428,8 +430,8 @@ static int slot2str (dir_slot *slotptr, char *l_name, int *idx) * into 'retdent' * Return 0 on success, -1 otherwise. */ -__attribute__ ((__aligned__ (__alignof__ (dir_entry)))) -__u8 get_vfatname_block[MAX_CLUSTSIZE]; +__u8 get_vfatname_block[MAX_CLUSTSIZE] + __aligned(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN); static int get_vfatname (fsdata *mydata, int curclust, __u8 *cluster, @@ -709,7 +711,7 @@ read_bootsectandvi (boot_sector *bs, volume_info *volinfo, int *fatsize) return -1; } - block = malloc(cur_dev->blksz); + block = memalign(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, cur_dev->blksz); if (block == NULL) { debug("Error: allocating block\n"); return -1; @@ -828,7 +830,7 @@ do_fat_read (const char *filename, void *buffer, unsigned long maxsize, } mydata->fatbufnum = -1; - mydata->fatbuf = malloc(FATBUFSIZE); + mydata->fatbuf = memalign(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, FATBUFSIZE); if (mydata->fatbuf == NULL) { debug("Error: allocating memory\n"); return -1;