[PATCH 3/4 v4] mailbox: Enable BCM2835 mailbox support

Lee Jones lee at kernel.org
Thu Mar 19 00:58:36 PDT 2015

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Eric Anholt wrote:

> Lee Jones <lee at kernel.org> writes:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2015, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >
> >> From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>
> >> 
> >> Implement BCM2835 mailbox support as a device registered with the
> >> general purpose mailbox framework. Implementation based on commits by
> >> Lubomir Rintel [1], Suman Anna and Jassi Brar [2] on which to base the
> >> implementation.
> >> 
> >> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rpi-kernel/2013-April/000528.html
> >> [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rpi-kernel/2013-May/000546.html
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>
> >> Signed-off-by: Craig McGeachie <slapdau at yahoo.com.au>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna at ti.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar at gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>
> >> Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar at gmail.com>
> >> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> 
> >> 
> >> v2: Squashed Craig's work for review, carried over to new version of
> >>     Mailbox framework (changes by Lubomir)
> >> 
> >> v3: Fix multi-line comment style.  Refer to the documentation by
> >>     filename.  Only declare one MODULE_AUTHOR.  Alphabetize includes.
> >>     Drop some excessive dev_dbg()s (changes by anholt).
> >> 
> >> v4: Use the new bcm2835_peripheral_read_workaround(), drop the
> >
> > Can you explain to me why this is required (and don't just point me in
> > the direction of the other patch ;) ).  You appear to be using the
> > non-relaxed variants of readl and writel, which already do memory
> > barriers, so I'm a little perplexed as to how the problem can arise.
> Hmm.
> A shorter restatement of the architecture requirement would be, I think,
> "Don't let there be two outstanding reads of different peripherals on
> the AXI bus, or the CPU might mis-assign the read results.  Use rmb() to
> wait for the previous bus reads when you need to prevent this"
> arch/arm/include/asm/io.h's readl() does __iormb() after each
> __raw_readl().  Imagine taking an interrupt for a new peripheral between
> the driver's __raw_readl() and the following __iormb(): Now you've got
> two __raw_readl()s in between iormb()s and you can theoretically get
> unordered reads.
> We could hope that the architecture IRQ handler would happen to do an
> incidental rmb(), resolving the need to protect from interrupt handling
> inside of device drivers.  The interrupt controller's presence at
> 0x7e00b200 sounds like it's an AXI peripheral, so it would need to be
> ensuring ordering of reads.  However, it's doing readl_relaxed()s.  So
> my rmb() at the start of my irq handler is silly -- if somebody got
> interrupted between readl and rmb, we've already had a chance to get the
> wrong result inside of the IRQ chip's status read.
> My new idea for handling this would be to:
> 1) Assume drivers don't exit with reads outstanding.  This means they
> don't do a readl_relaxed() from an AXI peripheral at the end of a path
> without doing something with the result.
> 2) Make bcm2835_handle_irq() do this rmb() at the top, with the big
> explanation, to avoid a race against the interrupted code device being
> inside a readl() before the __iormb().  We don't worry about the 1-2
> readl_relaxed()s inside of bcm2835_handle_irq(), because their return
> values get waited on before continuing on to calling the device driver,
> so the device driver knows its IRQ handler is being entered with no AXI
> reads outstanding.

That's a fantastic explanation.  Thanks for taking the time to
write this out so diligently.

Doing this at a sub-arch level sounds a little wrong to me.  I don't
think Broadcom are the only vendor who do not ensure correct read
order, and writing <vendor>_peripheral_read_workarounds() all over the
place sounds less than graceful.  Granted, if there were a greater
need and this can't be fixed another way we could knock off the
<vendor>_ part and make the call generic, but is there no way we can
deal with this at the architecture level?

The whole point of doing readl_relaxed()s is that you can be assured
that the architecture guarantee ordering.  If that's not the case,
then we need to be using readl()s in the IRQ handler instead. 

More information about the linux-rpi-kernel mailing list