From: santosh.shilimkar@ti•com (Santosh Shilimkar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mm: dma: Update coherent streaming apis with missing memory barrier
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:30:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5356D163.1070304@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5895821.PvurJ8TWz2@wuerfel>
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 04:23 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 15:58:09 Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 03:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 22 April 2014, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 10:08 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>> It's not the nicest API ever, but that's what it is and has been, mostly
>>>>> for compatibility with x86, where the 'mov' instruction performing the
>>>>> store to MMIO registers implies that all writes to DMA memory are
>>>>> visible to the device.
>>>>>
>>>> This is not about writel() and writel_relaxed(). The driver don't
>>>> need that barrier. For example if the actual start of the DMA
>>>> happens bit later, that doesn't matter for the driver.
>>>>
>>>> DMA APIs already do barriers today for non-coherent case. We
>>>> are not talking anything new here. Sorry but I don't see the
>>>> connection here.
>>>
>>> I don't think they do, nor should they. Can you tell me where
>>> you see a barrier in dma_sync_single_for_cpu() or
>>> arm_dma_sync_single_for_device()? For all I can tell, they
>>> only deal with L1 and L2 cache maintainance in arm_dma_ops.
>>>
>> The cache APIs used by dma_ops do have the necessary barriers
>> at end of the of the cache operations. Thats what I meant. So for
>> end user(Device driver), its transparent.
>
> Ok, I see it now for the noncoherent operations, and I see
> the same thing on PowerPC and MIPS, which also have both coherent
> and noncoherent versions of their dma_map_ops.
>
> However, I also see that neither of those does a wmb() for the
> coherent version. I don't see why ARM should be different from
> the others here, so if there is a reason to do a barrier there,
> we should change all architectures. I still don't see a reason
> why the barrier is needed though.
>
Thats fair.
> Can you be more specific in your driver example why you think
> the barrier in the writel() is not sufficient?
>
writel() or an explcit barrier in the driver will do the job. I was
just thinking that we are trying to work around the short comings
of streaming API by adding barriers in the driver. For example
on a non-coherent system, i don't need that barrier because
dma_ops does take care of that.
Anyway, I think you and Catalin convinced me enough to handle the
case at driver level so I step back on the patch. It make sense
to keep ARM consistent with other architectures.
Regards,
Santosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-22 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-21 18:03 [PATCH] ARM: mm: dma: Update coherent streaming apis with missing memory barrier Santosh Shilimkar
2014-04-22 10:28 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-22 13:49 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-04-22 14:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-04-22 14:36 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-04-22 19:53 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-04-22 19:58 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-04-22 20:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-04-22 20:30 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2014-04-23 9:02 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-23 16:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-04-23 17:17 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-23 18:37 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-23 18:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-04-23 19:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-24 10:47 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-04-24 11:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-24 11:21 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-24 13:38 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-04-24 14:09 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-24 14:44 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-04-24 19:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-23 19:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2014-04-24 10:58 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-24 12:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-04-24 12:37 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-24 9:54 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-04-24 11:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-24 9:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-04-24 9:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-24 10:13 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-05-02 21:33 ` Joel Fernandes
2014-05-06 10:01 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-22 15:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-04-22 15:18 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-04-22 15:30 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5356D163.1070304@ti.com \
--to=santosh.shilimkar@ti$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox