Patchwork [U-Boot,v3] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for usages of readb, writeb and friends.

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Alexander Holler
Date Dec. 22, 2010, 11:04 a.m.
Message ID <1293015862-3678-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/76386/
State Changes Requested
Headers show

Comments

Alexander Holler - Dec. 22, 2010, 11:04 a.m.
gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
avoid that as done in the kernel.

Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of that
gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in __arch_getl().
Anyway, using a definition as in the kernel headers avoids such optimizations when
gcc 4.5.1 is used.

Maybe the headers as used in the current linux-kernel should be used,
but to avoid large changes, I've just added a small change to the current headers.

I haven't add the definitions which are using a memory barrier because I haven't found
a place in the kernel where they were actually enabled (CONFIG_ARM_DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE).

Signed-off-by: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/io.h |   20 ++++++++++++++------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Dirk Behme - Dec. 22, 2010, 2:50 p.m.
On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
> avoid that as done in the kernel.
>
> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of that
> gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in __arch_getl().
> Anyway, using a definition as in the kernel headers avoids such optimizations when
> gcc 4.5.1 is used.
>
> Maybe the headers as used in the current linux-kernel should be used,
> but to avoid large changes, I've just added a small change to the current headers.
>
> I haven't add the definitions which are using a memory barrier because I haven't found
> a place in the kernel where they were actually enabled (CONFIG_ARM_DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE).
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Holler<holler@ahsoftware.de>

This patch seems to be the same as the proposal from Wolfgang

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-December/084122.html

So we shouldn't drop his

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Besides of this

Acked-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com>

Thanks

Dirk

> ---
>   arch/arm/include/asm/io.h |   20 ++++++++++++++------
>   1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> index ff1518e..068ed17 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> @@ -125,13 +125,21 @@ extern inline void __raw_readsl(unsigned int addr, void *data, int longlen)
>   #define __raw_readw(a)			__arch_getw(a)
>   #define __raw_readl(a)			__arch_getl(a)
>
> -#define writeb(v,a)			__arch_putb(v,a)
> -#define writew(v,a)			__arch_putw(v,a)
> -#define writel(v,a)			__arch_putl(v,a)
> +/*
> + * TODO: The kernel offers some more advanced versions of barriers, it might
> + * have some advantages to use them instead of the simple one here.
> + */
> +#define dmb()				__asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
> +#define __iormb()			dmb()
> +#define __iowmb()			dmb()
> +
> +#define writeb(v,c)			do { __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); } while (0)
> +#define writew(v,c)			do { __iowmb(); __arch_putw(v,c); } while (0)
> +#define writel(v,c)			do { __iowmb(); __arch_putl(v,c); } while (0)
>
> -#define readb(a)			__arch_getb(a)
> -#define readw(a)			__arch_getw(a)
> -#define readl(a)			__arch_getl(a)
> +#define readb(c)			({ u8  __v = __arch_getb(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +#define readw(c)			({ u16 __v = __arch_getw(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +#define readl(c)			({ u32 __v = __arch_getl(c); __iormb(); __v; })
>
>   /*
>    * The compiler seems to be incapable of optimising constants
Alexander Holler - Dec. 22, 2010, 3:07 p.m.
Hello,

Am 22.12.2010 15:50, schrieb Dirk Behme:
> This patch seems to be the same as the proposal from Wolfgang
>
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-December/084122.html
>

Exactly.

> So we shouldn't drop his
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
>

Sorry, I haven't seen that Signed-Off and I have not seen that the 
message includes a complete patch. I've only seen the fix for write* 
while (quickly) reading the msg and doing the tests afterwards.

> Besides of this
>
> Acked-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com>
>

And that I haven't added because the patch changed.

Should I send a new message with that Singed-Off and Acked-by?

Regards,

Alexander

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
index ff1518e..068ed17 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
@@ -125,13 +125,21 @@  extern inline void __raw_readsl(unsigned int addr, void *data, int longlen)
 #define __raw_readw(a)			__arch_getw(a)
 #define __raw_readl(a)			__arch_getl(a)
 
-#define writeb(v,a)			__arch_putb(v,a)
-#define writew(v,a)			__arch_putw(v,a)
-#define writel(v,a)			__arch_putl(v,a)
+/*
+ * TODO: The kernel offers some more advanced versions of barriers, it might
+ * have some advantages to use them instead of the simple one here.
+ */
+#define dmb()				__asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
+#define __iormb()			dmb()
+#define __iowmb()			dmb()
+
+#define writeb(v,c)			do { __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); } while (0)
+#define writew(v,c)			do { __iowmb(); __arch_putw(v,c); } while (0)
+#define writel(v,c)			do { __iowmb(); __arch_putl(v,c); } while (0)
 
-#define readb(a)			__arch_getb(a)
-#define readw(a)			__arch_getw(a)
-#define readl(a)			__arch_getl(a)
+#define readb(c)			({ u8  __v = __arch_getb(c); __iormb(); __v; })
+#define readw(c)			({ u16 __v = __arch_getw(c); __iormb(); __v; })
+#define readl(c)			({ u32 __v = __arch_getl(c); __iormb(); __v; })
 
 /*
  * The compiler seems to be incapable of optimising constants