From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: psci: move psci firmware calls out of line
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:39:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150318103902.GF18951@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150318103556.GD8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:35:57AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:30:14AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:20:29AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Why not convert these to:
> > >
> > > static int __naked __invoke_psci_fn_hvc(u32 function_id, u32 arg0, u32 arg1,
> > > u32 arg2)
> > > {
> > > asm(
> > > __HVC(0)
> > > "bx lr");
> > > }
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > I tried this, but the compiler printed a diagnostic along the lines of
> > "Ignoring __naked attribute", so we moved the functions out-of-line like
> > we have on arm64 instead. Assuming it worked reliably, what's the
> > advantage of __naked over having these out-of-line?
>
> Note that the above isn't using any asm constraints/arguments. The GCC
> manual states what can be safely included:
>
> `naked'
> Use this attribute on the ARM, AVR, IP2K, RX and SPU ports to
> indicate that the specified function does not need
> prologue/epilogue sequences generated by the compiler. It is up
> to the programmer to provide these sequences. The only statements
>
> that can be safely included in naked functions are `asm'
>
> statements that do not have operands. All other statements,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> including declarations of local variables, `if' statements, and so
> forth, should be avoided. Naked functions should be used to
> implement the body of an assembly function, while allowing the
> compiler to construct the requisite function declaration for the
> assembler.
>
> The advantage is that you have locality of code, and we don't need to
> spring up lots of assembly files along side their .c files.
>
> I'd guess that if you try to declare local variables etc, the compiler
> will just ignore the naked attribute, because it then can't give the
> guarantees that the function will be truely naked.
In which case, I can reinvestigate when I get some spare cycles. IIRC, the
problem only cropped up with allmodconfig, because we compile with -pg
but it's all a bit hazy...
Will
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-18 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-25 12:10 [PATCH 1/2] arm64: psci: move psci firmware calls out of line Will Deacon
2015-02-25 12:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: " Will Deacon
2015-03-18 10:20 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-18 10:30 ` Will Deacon
2015-03-18 10:35 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-18 10:39 ` Will Deacon [this message]
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=20150318103902.GF18951@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.