On 20/11/2018 08:56, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> How does this change anything with the fact that the above code is
>> broken? 56 or 64 bit, you cannot read this counter with a single
>> access, or two. The canonical way of reading such a counter is
>> something like this:
>>
>> do {
>> lo = readl_relaxed(LO);
>> hi = readl_relaxed(HI);
>> } while (hi != read_relaxed(HI));
>
> To be fair, I have seen hardware that employ a logic latch
> such that when a read access is done to the LO register,
> the value of the whole counter is latched, also for the HI
> register, so when you read the HI register in the second
> step, it is never subject to wrapping. (Conversely reading
> the HI before the LO will always give you insane values
> :D)
I've seen such HW indeed, and I've also seen it being broken... ;-)
It this timer is built around such a (non-broken) logic, I'd really like
to see it spelled out. It will otherwise be a real pain to debug...
> However the above code should be fine unless you know
> for sure the hardware was constructed with a clever latch.
Let's find out!
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
