Hi Arnd, thanks for the reviews!
On Tue, 2021-03-02 at 10:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:03 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > if (smmu->impl && unlikely(smmu->impl->write_reg))
> > smmu->impl->write_reg(smmu, page, offset, val);
> > - else
> > + else if (dev_64bit_mmio_supported(smmu->dev))
> > writel_relaxed(val, arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset);
> > + else
> > + hi_lo_writeq_relaxed(val, arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset);
> > }
>
> This is a writel_relaxed(), not a writeq_relaxed(), so I suppose you don't
> have to change it at all.
Yes, that was silly of me. I was worrying about the semantics of the whole
thing, and missed basic stuff like this.
> > + else if (dev_64bit_mmio_supported(smmu->dev))
> > + return readq_relaxed(arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset);
> > + else
> > + return hi_lo_readq_relaxed(arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset);
> > }
>
>
> I see this pattern repeat across multiple drivers. I think Christoph
> had originally
> suggested folding the if/else logic into the writel_relaxed() that is defined in
> include/linux/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h, but of course that doesn't work if you
> need to pass a device pointer.
>
> It might still make sense to have another wrapper in that same file though,
> something like
>
> static inline hi_lo_writeq_relaxed_if_possible(struct device *dev, __u64 val,
> volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> if (dev_64bit_mmio_supported(smmu->dev)) {
> readq_relaxed(arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset);
> } else {
> writel_relaxed(val >> 32, addr + 4);
> writel_relaxed(val, addr);
> }
> }
I like the idea. I'll try to integrate it into the next revision.
Regards,
Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
