From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754051AbcKHQtv (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:49:51 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:36302 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753929AbcKHQtr (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:49:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:49:49 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: John Garry Cc: "zhichang.yuan" , mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, minyard@acm.org, arnd@arndb.de, catalin.marinas@arm.com, gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com, zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com, liviu.dudau@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xuwei5@hisilicon.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, olof@lixom.net, robh+dt@kernel.org, zourongrong@gmail.com, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, kantyzc@163.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] ARM64 LPC: Indirect ISA port IO introduced Message-ID: <20161108164948.GG20591@arm.com> References: <1478576829-112707-1-git-send-email-yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com> <1478576829-112707-2-git-send-email-yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com> <20161108161245.GD20591@arm.com> <8adfe182-4939-479d-6013-25ec40021b20@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8adfe182-4939-479d-6013-25ec40021b20@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:33:44PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 08/11/2016 16:12, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:47:07AM +0800, zhichang.yuan wrote: > >>+static inline void arm64_set_extops(struct extio_ops *ops) > >>+{ > >>+ if (ops) > >>+ WRITE_ONCE(arm64_extio_ops, ops); > > > >Why does this need to be WRITE_ONCE? You don't have READ_ONCE on the reader > >side. Also, what if multiple drivers want to set different ops for distinct > >address ranges? > > I think that the idea here is that we only have possibly one master in the > system which offers indirectIO backend, so another one could not possibly > re-set this value. Why is that assumption valid, and why does WRITE_ONCE help there? It's not ONCE as in WARN_ONCE, more ONCE as in exactly-once-per-invocation. > >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/extio.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/extio.c > >>new file mode 100644 > >>index 0000000..647b3fa > >>--- /dev/null > >>+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/extio.c > >>@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ > >>+/* > >>+ * Copyright (C) 2016 Hisilicon Limited, All Rights Reserved. > >>+ * Author: Zhichang Yuan > >>+ * > >>+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > >>+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > >>+ * published by the Free Software Foundation. > >>+ * > >>+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > >>+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > >>+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > >>+ * GNU General Public License for more details. > >>+ * > >>+ * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > >>+ * along with this program. If not, see . > >>+ */ > >>+ > >>+#include > >>+ > >>+struct extio_ops *arm64_extio_ops; > >>+ > >>+ > >>+BUILD_EXTIO(b, u8) > >>+ > >>+BUILD_EXTIO(w, u16) > >>+ > >>+BUILD_EXTIO(l, u32) > > > >Is there no way to make this slightly more generic, so that it can be > >re-used elsewhere? For example, if struct extio_ops was common, then > >you could have the singleton (which maybe should be an interval tree?), > >type definition, setter function and the BUILD_EXTIO invocations > >somewhere generic, rather than squirelled away in the arch backend. > > > The concern would be that some architecture which uses generic higher-level > ISA accessor ops, but have IO space, could be affected. You're already adding a Kconfig symbol for this stuff, so you can keep that if you don't want it on other architectures. I'm just arguing that plumbing drivers directly into arch code via arm64_set_extops is not something I'm particularly fond of, especially when it looks like it could be avoided with a small amount of effort. Will