[PATCHv5 1/4] arm64: io: Use asm-generic high level MMIO accessors
Sai Prakash Ranjan
quic_saipraka at quicinc.com
Mon Dec 6 03:12:01 PST 2021
On 12/6/2021 2:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 9:28 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> <quic_saipraka at quicinc.com> wrote:
>> Remove custom arm64 MMIO accessors read{b,w,l,q} and their relaxed
>> versions in support to use asm-generic ones. Also define arm64
>> barrier macros to override the asm-generic defined barriers.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <quic_saipraka at quicinc.com>
> This looks correct, but I would change one detail:
>
>> +#define __io_ar(v) __io_par(v)
>> +#define __io_bw() __iowmb()
>> +#define __io_br(v)
>> +#define __io_aw(v)
> The default __io_par() is defined in terms of __io_ar(), so it would
> be more logical
> to remove the custom __io_par() and just define __io_ar() here.
Makes sense, will do this.
> I think it would be even better to flip these around and make the low-level
> definitions __io_ar() and __io_bw(), and then defining the arm64 specific
> macros based on those:
>
> /* arm64-specific, don't use in portable drivers */
> #define __iormb(v) __io_ar(v)
> #define __iowmb() __io_bw()
> #define __iomb() dma_mb()
>
>
So __iormb on arm64 has some dummy control dependency stuff as well based on
("arm64: io: Ensure calls to delay routines are ordered against prior
readX()") and then we would
need to change __iormb definition to __io_ar which doesn't seem like
__iormb definition to be exact
right?
Thanks,
Sai
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list