On 03/06/2015 01:00 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 03/04/2015 11:20 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 03/02/2015 01:54 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx>
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.
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/bcm2835-mailbox.c
b/drivers/mailbox/bcm2835-mailbox.c
+static irqreturn_t bcm2835_mbox_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) +{
+ struct bcm2835_mbox *mbox = (struct bcm2835_mbox *) dev_id; +
struct device *dev = mbox->dev; + + while (!(readl(mbox->regs +
MAIL0_STA) & ARM_MS_EMPTY)) { + u32 msg = readl(mbox->regs +
MAIL0_RD); + unsigned int chan = MBOX_CHAN(msg); + + if
(!mbox->channel[chan].started) { + dev_err(dev, "Reply on
stopped channel %d\n", chan); + continue; + } +
dev_dbg(dev, "Reply 0x%08X\n", msg); +
mbox_chan_received_data(mbox->channel[chan].link, + (void *)
MBOX_DATA28(msg)); + } + rmb(); /* Finished last mailbox read.
*/
I know the PDF mentioned in the comment earlier in the patch says
to put in barriers between accesses to different peripherals,
which this seems compliant with, but I don't see quite what this
barrier achieves. I think the PDF is talking generalities, not
imposing a rule that must be blindly followed. Besides, if
there's a context-switch you can't actually implement the rules
the PDF suggests. What read operation is this barrier attempting
to ensure happens after reading all mailbox messages and any
associated DRAM buffer?
Looking at this bit of code in particular:
"As interrupts can appear anywhere in the code so you should
safeguard those. If an interrupt routine reads from a peripheral
the routine should start with a memory read barrier. If an
interrupt routine writes to a peripheral the routine should end
with a memory write barrier."
I can see that doing that would be safe, but I don't think following
those rules is actually necessary in the general case. Following those
rules would cause lots of unnecessary barriers in code.
Barriers shouldn't be used arbitrarily at the start/end of ISRs, but
rather at specific chosen locations in the code that actually need to
enforce some kind of memory ordering.
According to the architecture docs, if you don't RMB at the start of
your ISR, then the following timeline could get the wrong values:
Which architecture doc and section/... specifically?
some other device driver our isr
------------------------ -------
rmb()
read from device
read from device
examine value read
exit isr
examine value raed.
The ISR could get the device driver's value. This is made explicit in
footnote 2 on page 7.
Are you saying that the "read from device" in the right -hand "our isr"
column could end up returning the value actually read during "read from
device" in the left-hand "some other device driver" column, or vice-versa?
That doesn't make any sense.
Barriers are about ensuring that accesses happen (are visible or
complete) in the desired order, not about ensuring that the results of
two unrelated reads don't get swapped.
--
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
