From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@kalrayinc.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
Jan Bottorff <janb@os.amperecomputing.com>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>,
Yann Sionneau <yann@sionneau.net>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Jan Dabros <jsd@semihalf.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: Fix corrupted memory seen in the ISR
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:51:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZQm1UyZ0g7KxRW3a@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <da400d3e-a357-1ae8-cb92-728cc4974b67@kalrayinc.com>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:38:22PM +0200, Yann Sionneau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/19/23 12:19, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > I also agree that a wmb() in the i2c driver is not the more elegant fix.
> > > For similar reasons, we hid barriers in the write*() macros, drivers
> > > need to stay architecture-agnostic as much as possible.
> > Exactly my thinking. I wanted to read this patch discussion later this
> > week. But from glimpsing at it so far, I already wondered why there
> > isn't a memory barrier in the final accessor to the register.
>
> The regmap accessors used by the designware driver end up calling
> writel_relaxed() and readl_relaxed() : https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.6-rc2/source/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c#L71
OK, since it ends up with the *_relaxed() accessors, there are no
barriers here. I wonder whether the regmap API should have both standard
and relaxed variants. If a regmap driver does not populate the
.reg_write_relaxed etc. members, a regmap_write_relaxed() would just
fall back to regmap_write().
We went through similar discussions many years ago around the I/O
accessors and decided to add the barriers to readl/writel() even if they
become more expensive, correctness should be first. The relaxed variants
were added as optimisations if specific memory ordering was not
required. I think the regmap API should follow the same semantics, go
for correctness first as you can't tell what the side-effect of a
regmap_write() is (e.g. kicking off DMA or causing an interrupt on
another CPU).
> In those cases I would say the smp_* barriers are what we are supposed to
> use, isn't it?
While smp_* is ok, it really depends on what the regmap_write() does. Is
it a write to a shared peripheral (if not, you may need a DSB)? Does the
regmap_write() caller know this? That's why I think having the barrier
in dw_reg_write() is better.
If you do want to stick to a fix in i2c_dw_xfer_init(), you could go for
dma_wmb(). While this is not strictly DMA, it's sharing data with
another coherent agent (a different CPU in this instance). The smp_wmb()
is more about communication via memory not involving I/O. But this still
assumes that the caller knows regmap_write() ends up with an I/O
write*() (potentially relaxed).
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-19 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-13 23:29 [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: Fix corrupted memory seen in the ISR Jan Bottorff
2023-09-14 18:46 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-14 18:47 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-14 20:52 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-15 12:44 ` Jarkko Nikula
2023-09-15 15:21 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-16 1:47 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-17 0:01 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-17 20:08 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-09-18 23:14 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-19 3:45 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-19 9:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-09-19 10:19 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-19 12:38 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-09-19 14:51 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2023-09-19 14:55 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-19 18:54 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-19 21:05 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-20 9:08 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-20 13:27 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-09-20 19:14 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-25 12:54 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-25 19:39 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-27 19:38 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-29 8:48 ` Jarkko Nikula
2023-10-26 11:18 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-10-31 0:12 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-10-31 5:51 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-10-31 8:44 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-10-31 12:10 ` Jarkko Nikula
2023-10-31 13:06 ` Serge Semin
2023-11-01 16:51 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-20 11:03 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-09-20 10:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-09-20 11:05 ` 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=ZQm1UyZ0g7KxRW3a@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@kernel.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fancer.lancer@gmail.com \
--cc=janb@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jsd@semihalf.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=wsa@kernel.org \
--cc=yann@sionneau.net \
--cc=ysionneau@kalrayinc.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.