On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 12:03 +0000, 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. On some ppc's we also use similar indirect access methods for IOs. We have a generic infrastructure for re-routing some memory or IO regions to hooks. On POWER8, our PCIe doesn't do IO at all, but we have an LPC bus behind firmware calls ;-) We use that infrastructure to plumb in the LPC bus. > > 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). Multi-instance with IO is tricky to do generically because archs already have all sort of hacks to deal with the fact that inb/outb don't require an explicit ioremap, so an IO resource can take all sort of shape depending on the arch. Overall it boils down to applying some kind of per-instance "offset" to the IO port number though. > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/extio.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extio.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..6ae0787 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extio.h > > > > > +#ifndef __LINUX_EXTIO_H > > +#define __LINUX_EXTIO_H > > This doesn't match the file naming, __ASM_EXTIO_H would be consistent > with other arm64 headers. > > > > > + > > +struct extio_ops { > > > > + unsigned long start;/* inclusive, sys io addr */ > > > > + unsigned long end;/* inclusive, sys io addr */ > > Please put whitespace before inline comments. > > [...] > > > > > > > +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? > > [...] > > > > > +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. > > Thanks, > Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html