All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-can@vger.kernel.org" <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mkl@pengutronix.de" <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
	Soren Brinkmann <sorenb@xilinx.com>,
	Anirudha Sarangi <anirudh@xilinx.com>,
	"wg@grandegger.com" <wg@grandegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:49:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5628B141.1010307@xilinx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3847286.pUBWjpC1TL@wuerfel>

On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:34:53 Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote:
>>> On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
>>>> The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so
>>>> readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO.
>>>> During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit processor
>>>> while sending lot of packets observed that the tx packet drop with
>>>> iowrite Putting the barriers for each tx fifo register write fixes
>>>> this issue Instead of barriers using writel also fixed this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kedareswara rao Appana <appanad@xilinx.com>
>>>
>>> The two should really do the same thing: iowrite32() is just a static inline calling
>>> writel() on both ARM32 and ARM64. On which kernel version did you observe the
>>> difference? It's possible that an older version used CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP,
>>> which made this slightly more expensive.
>>
>> I observed this issue with the 4.0.0 kernel version
> 
> Is it possible that you have nonstandard patches on your kernel? If so, can
> you send a diff against the mainline version?

Kedar: Can you please retest this on mainline kernel?
We shouldn't have any patches which should influence this.

Thanks,
Michal

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: michal.simek@xilinx.com (Michal Simek)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:49:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5628B141.1010307@xilinx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3847286.pUBWjpC1TL@wuerfel>

On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:34:53 Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote:
>>> On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
>>>> The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so
>>>> readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO.
>>>> During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit processor
>>>> while sending lot of packets observed that the tx packet drop with
>>>> iowrite Putting the barriers for each tx fifo register write fixes
>>>> this issue Instead of barriers using writel also fixed this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kedareswara rao Appana <appanad@xilinx.com>
>>>
>>> The two should really do the same thing: iowrite32() is just a static inline calling
>>> writel() on both ARM32 and ARM64. On which kernel version did you observe the
>>> difference? It's possible that an older version used CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP,
>>> which made this slightly more expensive.
>>
>> I observed this issue with the 4.0.0 kernel version
> 
> Is it possible that you have nonstandard patches on your kernel? If so, can
> you send a diff against the mainline version?

Kedar: Can you please retest this on mainline kernel?
We shouldn't have any patches which should influence this.

Thanks,
Michal

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-can@vger.kernel.org" <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>,
	Soren Brinkmann <sorenb@xilinx.com>,
	Anirudha Sarangi <anirudh@xilinx.com>,
	"mkl@pengutronix.de" <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
	"wg@grandegger.com" <wg@grandegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:49:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5628B141.1010307@xilinx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3847286.pUBWjpC1TL@wuerfel>

On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:34:53 Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote:
>>> On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
>>>> The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so
>>>> readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO.
>>>> During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit processor
>>>> while sending lot of packets observed that the tx packet drop with
>>>> iowrite Putting the barriers for each tx fifo register write fixes
>>>> this issue Instead of barriers using writel also fixed this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kedareswara rao Appana <appanad@xilinx.com>
>>>
>>> The two should really do the same thing: iowrite32() is just a static inline calling
>>> writel() on both ARM32 and ARM64. On which kernel version did you observe the
>>> difference? It's possible that an older version used CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP,
>>> which made this slightly more expensive.
>>
>> I observed this issue with the 4.0.0 kernel version
> 
> Is it possible that you have nonstandard patches on your kernel? If so, can
> you send a diff against the mainline version?

Kedar: Can you please retest this on mainline kernel?
We shouldn't have any patches which should influence this.

Thanks,
Michal

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-can@vger.kernel.org" <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mkl@pengutronix.de" <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
	Soren Brinkmann <sorenb@xilinx.com>,
	Anirudha Sarangi <anirudh@xilinx.com>,
	"wg@grandegger.com" <wg@grandegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:49:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5628B141.1010307@xilinx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3847286.pUBWjpC1TL@wuerfel>

On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:34:53 Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote:
>>> On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
>>>> The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so
>>>> readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO.
>>>> During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit processor
>>>> while sending lot of packets observed that the tx packet drop with
>>>> iowrite Putting the barriers for each tx fifo register write fixes
>>>> this issue Instead of barriers using writel also fixed this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kedareswara rao Appana <appanad@xilinx.com>
>>>
>>> The two should really do the same thing: iowrite32() is just a static inline calling
>>> writel() on both ARM32 and ARM64. On which kernel version did you observe the
>>> difference? It's possible that an older version used CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP,
>>> which made this slightly more expensive.
>>
>> I observed this issue with the 4.0.0 kernel version
> 
> Is it possible that you have nonstandard patches on your kernel? If so, can
> you send a diff against the mainline version?

Kedar: Can you please retest this on mainline kernel?
We shouldn't have any patches which should influence this.

Thanks,
Michal

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-22  9:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-22  4:46 [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46 ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46 ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46 ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] can: xilinx: fix bug in bus error handling Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46   ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46 ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46   ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46 ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46   ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46 ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22  4:46   ` Kedareswara rao Appana
2015-10-22 16:33   ` Sören Brinkmann
2015-10-22 16:33     ` Sören Brinkmann
2015-10-22 16:33     ` Sören Brinkmann
2015-10-23  5:21     ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-23  5:21       ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-23  5:21       ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-22  8:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-22  8:14   ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-22  8:21   ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-10-22  8:21     ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-10-22  8:39     ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-22  8:39       ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-22  8:39       ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-22  8:58     ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-22  8:58       ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-25 20:32       ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-10-25 20:32         ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-10-26  1:25         ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-26  1:25           ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-22  8:34   ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-22  8:34     ` Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
2015-10-22  9:02     ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-22  9:02       ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-22  9:49       ` Michal Simek [this message]
2015-10-22  9:49         ` Michal Simek
2015-10-22  9:49         ` Michal Simek
2015-10-22  9:49         ` Michal Simek

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=5628B141.1010307@xilinx.com \
    --to=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
    --cc=anirudh@xilinx.com \
    --cc=appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sorenb@xilinx.com \
    --cc=wg@grandegger.com \
    /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.