Hi,
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 03:41:20PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Using devm_ioremap_resource() API should actually be preferred over
>> > devm_ioremap(), since the former request the mem region first and then
>> > gives back the ioremap'ed memory pointer.
>> > devm_ioremap_resource() calls request_mem_region(), therby preventing
>> > other drivers to make any overlapping call to the same region.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Although this patch and rest in the series are merged.
>> But i have got a doubt, so making this thread alive.
>>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c | 7 +++----
>> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> > index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> > @@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
>> >
>> > hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
>> > hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
>> > - hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
>> > - if (!hcd->regs) {
>> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
>> > - err = -ENOMEM;
>> > + hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>>
>> Here, we replaced devm_ioremap() call with devm_ioremap_resource(),
>> which internally requests the memory region
>
> I guess this could lead to problems if drivers haven't been written to
> cleanly split the register ranges that they access, since now two
> overlapping regions may be requested and cause the drivers to fail.
Sorry i did not understand completely. Wouldn't the request_mem_region()
fail for an already busy resource ?
So devm_ioremap_resource() will in fact prevent the drivers from requesting
the same memory region twice until the first request frees the region.
Isn't it ?
>
>> and then does a "devm_ioremap()" or "devm_ioremap_nocache()" based on
>> the check for IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE flag.
>>
>> But this flag is not set for the resource of this device.
>> So should we be explicitly setting the flag in driver ?
>
> I don't think it makes much sense to map these registers cached anyway.
> Drivers will likely expect writes to this region to take effect without
> needing any kind of flushing.
These "hcd->regs" are going to be used by the controller, so wouldn't there be a
a performance difference when the requested address space is
cacheable/non-cacheable ?
--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
