* Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm-generic/io: Pass result on inX() accessor to __io_par() [not found] ` <20190211174544.4302-2-will.deacon@arm.com> @ 2019-02-12 11:55 ` Arnd Bergmann 2019-02-13 17:46 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2019-02-12 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arch, Albert Ou, Catalin Marinas, Palmer Dabbelt, Linux Kernel Mailing List, andrew.murray, linux-riscv On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > The inX() I/O accessors must enforce ordering against subsequent calls > to the delay() routines, so that a read-back from a device can be used > to postpone a subsequent write to the same device. > > On some architectures, including arm64, this ordering can only be > achieved by creating a dependency on the value returned by the inX() > operation, so we need to pass the value we read to the __io_par() > macro in this case. > > Reported-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > --- > include/asm-generic/io.h | 8 ++++---- For changing the asm-generic file in the arm64 tree, Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> For all I can see, this should not conflict with the usage of the same macros on RISC-V, though it does make add a significant difference, so I'd like to see an Ack from the RISC-V folks as well (added to Cc), or possibly a change to arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h to do a corresponding change. Arnd _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm-generic/io: Pass result on inX() accessor to __io_par() 2019-02-12 11:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] asm-generic/io: Pass result on inX() accessor to __io_par() Arnd Bergmann @ 2019-02-13 17:46 ` Will Deacon 2019-02-13 20:59 ` Arnd Bergmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-02-13 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arch, Albert Ou, Catalin Marinas, Palmer Dabbelt, Linux Kernel Mailing List, andrew.murray, linux-riscv On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:55:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > The inX() I/O accessors must enforce ordering against subsequent calls > > to the delay() routines, so that a read-back from a device can be used > > to postpone a subsequent write to the same device. > > > > On some architectures, including arm64, this ordering can only be > > achieved by creating a dependency on the value returned by the inX() > > operation, so we need to pass the value we read to the __io_par() > > macro in this case. > > > > Reported-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > --- > > include/asm-generic/io.h | 8 ++++---- > > For changing the asm-generic file in the arm64 tree, > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Thanks, Arnd. > For all I can see, this should not conflict with the usage of the > same macros on RISC-V, though it does make add a significant > difference, so I'd like to see an Ack from the RISC-V folks as > well (added to Cc), or possibly a change to arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h > to do a corresponding change. There's already a comment in that header which says that the accesses are ordered wrt timer reads, so I don't think anything needs to change there. For consistency with the macro arguments, I could augment their __io_par to take the read value as an unused argument, if that's what you mean? Will _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm-generic/io: Pass result on inX() accessor to __io_par() 2019-02-13 17:46 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-02-13 20:59 ` Arnd Bergmann 2019-02-13 21:57 ` Palmer Dabbelt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2019-02-13 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arch, Albert Ou, Catalin Marinas, Palmer Dabbelt, Linux Kernel Mailing List, andrew.murray, linux-riscv On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:46 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:55:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > For all I can see, this should not conflict with the usage of the > > same macros on RISC-V, though it does make add a significant > > difference, so I'd like to see an Ack from the RISC-V folks as > > well (added to Cc), or possibly a change to arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h > > to do a corresponding change. > > There's already a comment in that header which says that the accesses are > ordered wrt timer reads, so I don't think anything needs to change there. > For consistency with the macro arguments, I could augment their __io_par to > take the read value as an unused argument, if that's what you mean? Yes, that's what I meant, I should have been clearer there. Arnd _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm-generic/io: Pass result on inX() accessor to __io_par() 2019-02-13 20:59 ` Arnd Bergmann @ 2019-02-13 21:57 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2019-02-18 15:56 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Palmer Dabbelt @ 2019-02-13 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arch, aou, catalin.marinas, Will Deacon, linux-kernel, andrew.murray, linux-riscv On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:59:28 PST (-0800), Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:46 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:55:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> > For all I can see, this should not conflict with the usage of the >> > same macros on RISC-V, though it does make add a significant >> > difference, so I'd like to see an Ack from the RISC-V folks as >> > well (added to Cc), or possibly a change to arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h >> > to do a corresponding change. Thanks, the original patches didn't make it through my filters. >> There's already a comment in that header which says that the accesses are >> ordered wrt timer reads, so I don't think anything needs to change there. >> For consistency with the macro arguments, I could augment their __io_par to >> take the read value as an unused argument, if that's what you mean? FWIW, we don't really have a way to mandate this in the ISA yet as there's no formal model for either CSR orderings or the IO memory space. > Yes, that's what I meant, I should have been clearer there. That sounds reasonable to me. It looks like we can also go ahead and delete a bunch of arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h now that this stuff is in asm-generic, which would cause us to actually start using these things. I didn't know this had all been moved to asm-generic otherwise I would have cleaned this up earlier. I think this should do it, but this does bring up a bit of an issue: the RISC-V versions of reads and friends put barriers outside the loop, while the asm-generic version don't. What are these actually supposed to do? Either way that resolves, feel free to consider something like diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h index b269451e7e85..378975f180a7 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h @@ -198,20 +198,20 @@ static inline u64 __raw_readq(const volatile void __iomem *addr) * writes. */ #define __io_pbr() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence io,i" : : : "memory"); -#define __io_par() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence i,ior" : : : "memory"); +#define __io_par(v) __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence i,ior" : : : "memory"); #define __io_pbw() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence iow,o" : : : "memory"); #define __io_paw() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence o,io" : : : "memory"); -#define inb(c) ({ u8 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readb_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; }) -#define inw(c) ({ u16 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readw_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; }) -#define inl(c) ({ u32 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readl_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; }) +#define inb(c) ({ u8 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readb_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; }) +#define inw(c) ({ u16 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readw_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; }) +#define inl(c) ({ u32 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readl_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; }) #define outb(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writeb_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); }) #define outw(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writew_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); }) #define outl(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writel_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); }) #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT -#define inq(c) ({ u64 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readq_cpu((void*)(c)); __io_par(); __v; }) +#define inq(c) ({ u64 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readq_cpu((void*)(c)); __io_par(__v); __v; }) #define outq(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writeq_cpu((v),(void*)(c)); __io_paw(); }) #endif @@ -261,9 +261,9 @@ __io_reads_ins(reads, u32, l, __io_br(), __io_ar()) #define readsw(addr, buffer, count) __readsw(addr, buffer, count) #define readsl(addr, buffer, count) __readsl(addr, buffer, count) -__io_reads_ins(ins, u8, b, __io_pbr(), __io_par()) -__io_reads_ins(ins, u16, w, __io_pbr(), __io_par()) -__io_reads_ins(ins, u32, l, __io_pbr(), __io_par()) +__io_reads_ins(ins, u8, b, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr)) +__io_reads_ins(ins, u16, w, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr)) +__io_reads_ins(ins, u32, l, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr)) #define insb(addr, buffer, count) __insb((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count) #define insw(addr, buffer, count) __insw((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count) #define insl(addr, buffer, count) __insl((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count) as Revewied-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> when included along with the other diff. That way we can at least keep the macro signatures matching, the cleanup can come later... Thanks! _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] asm-generic/io: Pass result on inX() accessor to __io_par() 2019-02-13 21:57 ` Palmer Dabbelt @ 2019-02-18 15:56 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-02-18 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: linux-arch, aou, Arnd Bergmann, catalin.marinas, linux-kernel, andrew.murray, linux-riscv On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:57:50PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:59:28 PST (-0800), Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:46 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:55:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > For all I can see, this should not conflict with the usage of the > > > > same macros on RISC-V, though it does make add a significant > > > > difference, so I'd like to see an Ack from the RISC-V folks as > > > > well (added to Cc), or possibly a change to arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h > > > > to do a corresponding change. > > Thanks, the original patches didn't make it through my filters. > > > > There's already a comment in that header which says that the accesses are > > > ordered wrt timer reads, so I don't think anything needs to change there. > > > For consistency with the macro arguments, I could augment their __io_par to > > > take the read value as an unused argument, if that's what you mean? > > FWIW, we don't really have a way to mandate this in the ISA yet as there's > no formal model for either CSR orderings or the IO memory space. Ah, so you may end up needing the dependency trick too, depending on where you land with the ISA. > > Yes, that's what I meant, I should have been clearer there. > > That sounds reasonable to me. It looks like we can also go ahead and delete > a bunch of arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h now that this stuff is in > asm-generic, which would cause us to actually start using these things. I > didn't know this had all been moved to asm-generic otherwise I would have > cleaned this up earlier. > > I think this should do it, but this does bring up a bit of an issue: the > RISC-V versions of reads and friends put barriers outside the loop, while > the asm-generic version don't. What are these actually supposed to do? You're referring to the string accessors (e.g. insb() and readsw()), right? arm and arm64 don't provide barriers here either, and I don't think they should have to given that these routines are usually used to poll data register-based FIFOs and therefore don't need to provide ordering guarantees against DMA operations. However, this is woefully undocumented and I shall try to address this in the next version of my memory-barriers.txt patch relating to this area [1]. > Either way that resolves, feel free to consider something like > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h > index b269451e7e85..378975f180a7 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h > @@ -198,20 +198,20 @@ static inline u64 __raw_readq(const volatile void __iomem *addr) > * writes. > */ > #define __io_pbr() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence io,i" : : : "memory"); > -#define __io_par() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence i,ior" : : : "memory"); > +#define __io_par(v) __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence i,ior" : : : "memory"); > #define __io_pbw() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence iow,o" : : : "memory"); > #define __io_paw() __asm__ __volatile__ ("fence o,io" : : : "memory"); > > -#define inb(c) ({ u8 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readb_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; }) > -#define inw(c) ({ u16 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readw_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; }) > -#define inl(c) ({ u32 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readl_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(); __v; }) > +#define inb(c) ({ u8 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readb_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; }) > +#define inw(c) ({ u16 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readw_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; }) > +#define inl(c) ({ u32 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readl_cpu((void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_par(__v); __v; }) > > #define outb(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writeb_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); }) > #define outw(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writew_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); }) > #define outl(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writel_cpu((v),(void*)(PCI_IOBASE + (c))); __io_paw(); }) > > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT > -#define inq(c) ({ u64 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readq_cpu((void*)(c)); __io_par(); __v; }) > +#define inq(c) ({ u64 __v; __io_pbr(); __v = readq_cpu((void*)(c)); __io_par(__v); __v; }) > #define outq(v,c) ({ __io_pbw(); writeq_cpu((v),(void*)(c)); __io_paw(); }) > #endif > > @@ -261,9 +261,9 @@ __io_reads_ins(reads, u32, l, __io_br(), __io_ar()) > #define readsw(addr, buffer, count) __readsw(addr, buffer, count) > #define readsl(addr, buffer, count) __readsl(addr, buffer, count) > > -__io_reads_ins(ins, u8, b, __io_pbr(), __io_par()) > -__io_reads_ins(ins, u16, w, __io_pbr(), __io_par()) > -__io_reads_ins(ins, u32, l, __io_pbr(), __io_par()) > +__io_reads_ins(ins, u8, b, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr)) > +__io_reads_ins(ins, u16, w, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr)) > +__io_reads_ins(ins, u32, l, __io_pbr(), __io_par(addr)) > #define insb(addr, buffer, count) __insb((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count) > #define insw(addr, buffer, count) __insw((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count) > #define insl(addr, buffer, count) __insl((void __iomem *)(long)addr, buffer, count) > > as > > Revewied-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> > > when included along with the other diff. That way we can at least keep the > macro signatures matching, the cleanup can come later... Thanks, Palmer! I'll send a v2 of this patch, updated to fix up insq() as well as the readX() macros too, since they're likely to suffer the exact same issues as inX() in this regard. Will [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/11/1803 _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-18 15:56 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <20190211174544.4302-1-will.deacon@arm.com> [not found] ` <20190211174544.4302-2-will.deacon@arm.com> 2019-02-12 11:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] asm-generic/io: Pass result on inX() accessor to __io_par() Arnd Bergmann 2019-02-13 17:46 ` Will Deacon 2019-02-13 20:59 ` Arnd Bergmann 2019-02-13 21:57 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2019-02-18 15:56 ` Will Deacon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).