From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932632AbcKHQTu (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:19:50 -0500 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:64449 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932242AbcKHQTr (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:19:47 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Mark Rutland , "zhichang.yuan" , gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, will.deacon@arm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, xuwei5@hisilicon.com, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, minyard@acm.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, liviu.dudau@arm.com, john.garry@huawei.com, zourongrong@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, kantyzc@163.com, zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, olof@lixom.net Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] ARM64 LPC: Indirect ISA port IO introduced Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 17:09:59 +0100 Message-ID: <13493313.OkuDZEY5WO@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-34-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20161108120323.GC15297@leverpostej> References: <1478576829-112707-1-git-send-email-yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com> <1478576829-112707-2-git-send-email-yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com> <20161108120323.GC15297@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:hVNV4PcQ3V0XsSQtNQ+PBNquuJXcY66TRw4YeHdezlI04CoBISD 7TE/RJBaD3gSlPXmOJVCX1XZ8yujQxH2+EkNdt9Y3jnQIA3HV+ztxWhXWFIPt67eUu7HTNY 8lUOirvO4GiFB46IGmRhs/gDC6tU5mHueb8KCdoufvCKu1WEDOwiTL3L2XFPv56YbD6XL88 9GPK3V+zznSgq5qWeGAIQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:COkccGZi/A4=:Hen4D/l2YMABuE4jeiPsO1 54QeF3gwamMMv2lVhsflEkBzd1z/2ozc28oy95XlHL47BGFNnWGFxjJntVSyThkKXtFQC0mw3 W8Uf319B3hzYrsaHj4WakzMNFcvGcsEhYwfdV9hTxXx7HdBrRtBFGJtzSNrVeoKhgEf5TlFdC O/SgaLOA+WCtE3zSl5eolUFnCRnNcJtj3zak6uPiPxrUvuX03yRchW8dA5PfwuhybaybFNs9P fPxUp0BGU83IBMQrFqzYALJZ4n7x9wU8tktNfrLEtxwesyLgp++fIohgQ+t4SYTZeRp88cMVE VoCwyFwN3lF3U1+2WdgbOCzCqVpjzxJx/B6ioOwavk9b934rowvrMvVuBSj9NCMsWTTV5Fo6U DTTNE4ERwZ6oe6sEq3T9NJZ7KrBL5kxTp+7yKMjeVdG8KByKqQiJAi+8ASmOrrd8lnLPK9alS wvlRCt5lH/fbyKY2V/wp6atk0bsQ+fxuRX5I37VhttNcyVdRppeVa0gtHFfACFnqTV4CpaU6F TTEIq0eei8JLDXVAFWfBjRbcGV/TKB9dpt0TCEoYCq+vPiMEQ+d9qwNHBEfcSnXc4qiNcjWfo TQvojy66e5SdHjtlLOQvXAqvr5DU+pW1F+ljabGMm3FTsxmMjxWlIfo6BfXcHuVF1FvigVjop gagunZVdEvjG8C/vrVSrFqd4bPM/RPqE92e7VMEDErBrfAwXvGEFehikI+g+EpXlwP3wDsGHX RBxTwINO5XMukCXb Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:03:23 PM CET Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:47:07AM +0800, zhichang.yuan wrote: > > For arm64, there is no I/O space as other architectural platforms, such as > > X86. Most I/O accesses are achieved based on MMIO. But for some arm64 SoCs, > > such as Hip06, when accessing some legacy ISA devices connected to LPC, those > > known port addresses are used to control the corresponding target devices, for > > example, 0x2f8 is for UART, 0xe4 is for ipmi-bt. It is different from the > > normal MMIO mode in using. > > This has nothing to do with arm64. Hardware with this kind of indirect > bus access could be integrated with a variety of CPU architectures. It > simply hasn't been, yet. Actually PowerPC has a vaguely similar mechanism. > > To drive these devices, this patch introduces a method named indirect-IO. > > In this method the in/out pair in arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h will be > > redefined. When upper layer drivers call in/out with those known legacy port > > addresses to access the peripherals, the hooking functions corrresponding to > > those target peripherals will be called. Through this way, those upper layer > > drivers which depend on in/out can run on Hip06 without any changes. > > As above, this has nothing to do with arm64, and as such, should live in > generic code, exactly as we would do if we had higher-level ISA > accessor ops. > > Regardless, given the multi-instance case, I don't think this is > sufficient in general (and I think we need higher-level ISA accessors > to handle the indirection). I think it is rather unlikely that we have to deal with multiple instances in the future, it's more likely that future platforms won't have any I/O ports at all, which is why I was advocating for simplicity here. > > +type in##bw(unsigned long addr) \ > > +{ \ > > + if (!arm64_extio_ops || arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->end < addr) \ > > + return read##bw(PCI_IOBASE + addr); \ > > + return arm64_extio_ops->pfin ? \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->pfin(arm64_extio_ops->devpara, \ > > + addr, sizeof(type)) : -1; \ > > +} \ > > + \ > > +void out##bw(type value, unsigned long addr) \ > > +{ \ > > + if (!arm64_extio_ops || arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->end < addr) \ > > + write##bw(value, PCI_IOBASE + addr); \ > > + else \ > > + if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout) \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\ > > + addr, value, sizeof(type)); \ > > +} \ > > + \ > > +void ins##bw(unsigned long addr, void *buffer, unsigned int count) \ > > +{ \ > > + if (!arm64_extio_ops || arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->end < addr) \ > > + reads##bw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); \ > > + else \ > > + if (arm64_extio_ops->pfins) \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->pfins(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\ > > + addr, buffer, sizeof(type), count); \ > > +} \ > > + \ > > +void outs##bw(unsigned long addr, const void *buffer, unsigned int count) \ > > +{ \ > > + if (!arm64_extio_ops || arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->end < addr) \ > > + writes##bw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); \ > > + else \ > > + if (arm64_extio_ops->pfouts) \ > > + arm64_extio_ops->pfouts(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\ > > + addr, buffer, sizeof(type), count); \ > > +} > > + > > So all PCI I/O will be slowed down by irrelevant checks when this is > enabled? I don't see a better alternative. I earlier suggested having these out of line so we don't grow the object code too much when it is enabled. Performance of PIO accessors is not an issue here though, any bus access will by definition be orders of magnitude slower than the added branches and dereferences here. > [...] > > > +static inline void arm64_set_extops(struct extio_ops *ops) > > +{ > > + if (ops) > > + WRITE_ONCE(arm64_extio_ops, ops); > > +} > > Why WRITE_ONCE()? > > Is this not protected/propagated by some synchronisation mechanism? > > WRITE_ONCE() is not sufficient to ensure that this is consistently > observed by readers, and regardless, I don't see READ_ONCE() anywhere in > this patch. > > This looks very suspicious. Agreed, this looks wrong. Arnd