From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:55:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20140925145538.GN20043@arm.com> References: <1411579056-16966-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <2811016.mhqlsl6pTS@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:60437 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752130AbaIYO4g (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:56:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2811016.mhqlsl6pTS@wuerfel> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "benh@kernel.crashing.org" , "chris@zankel.net" , "cmetcalf@tilera.com" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "deller@gmx.de" , "dhowells@redhat.com" , "geert@linux-m68k.org" , "heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "jcmvbkbc@gmail.com" , "jesper.nilsson@axis.com" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "monstr@monstr.eu" , "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "rdunlap@infradead.org" , "sam@ravnborg.org" , "schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:15:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 24 September 2014 18:17:19 Will Deacon wrote: > > This is version three of the series I've originally posted here: > > > > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/17/269 > > v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/22/468 > > > > This is basically just a rebase on top of 3.17-rc6, minus the alpha patch > > (which was merged into mainline). > > > > I looked at reworking the non-relaxed accessors to imply mmiowb, but it > > quickly got messy as some architectures (e.g. mips) deliberately keep > > mmiowb and readX/writeX separate whilst others (e.g. powerpc) don't trust > > drivers to get mmiowb correct, so add barriers to both. Given that > > arm/arm64/x86 don't care about mmiowb, I've left that as an exercise for > > an architecture that does care. > > > > In order to get this lot merged, we probably want to merge the asm-generic > > patch (1/17) first, so Acks would be much appreciated on the architecture > > bits. > > > > As before, I've included the original cover letter below, as that describes > > what I'm trying to do in more detail. > > > > I've now applied the parts of your series that are required to have > every architecture provide all the 'relaxed' accessors to the > asm-generic tree, on top of Thierry's series. Brill, thanks Arnd! I'll repost what's left during the next cycle, however I think you also need to pick the microblaze patch as it includes before defining its relaxed accessors, so I think you'll get a redefinition warning from the preprocessor. > I had to change your first patch significantly because all the context > changed in his patches. See below for the new version. Thierry, can > you also confirm that this matches up with the intention of your > series? Since that now adds a separate #ifdef for each symbol, I > ended up putting the #ifdef for the relaxed version inside of the > #ifdef for the non-relaxed version, but it could alternatively > be defined outside of it as well. I think both work, as I can't find any architectures that define the relaxed variants but not the non-relaxed versions. > The entire series of both Thierry's and Will's changes is now in > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/asm-generic.git > and should show up in linux-next tomorrow. There are currently > no conflicts against anything else in linux-next. > > Since we're rather close to the merge window, I'd probably leave > this in linux-next for a while longer and submit it all for inclusion > in 3.18 in the second week after 3.17. Makes sense. Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:60437 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752130AbaIYO4g (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:56:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:55:38 +0100 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors Message-ID: <20140925145538.GN20043@arm.com> References: <1411579056-16966-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <2811016.mhqlsl6pTS@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2811016.mhqlsl6pTS@wuerfel> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "benh@kernel.crashing.org" , "chris@zankel.net" , "cmetcalf@tilera.com" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "deller@gmx.de" , "dhowells@redhat.com" , "geert@linux-m68k.org" , "heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "jcmvbkbc@gmail.com" , "jesper.nilsson@axis.com" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "monstr@monstr.eu" , "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "rdunlap@infradead.org" , "sam@ravnborg.org" , "schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" , "starvik@axis.com" , "takata@linux-m32r.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "tony.luck@intel.com" , "daniel.thompson@linaro.org" , "broonie@linaro.org" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "thierry.reding@gmail.com" Message-ID: <20140925145538.WMcdR3PhtKDYxUvfzyi3lWUmJfoP7RAhDzNEXVXE1mk@z> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:15:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 24 September 2014 18:17:19 Will Deacon wrote: > > This is version three of the series I've originally posted here: > > > > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/17/269 > > v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/22/468 > > > > This is basically just a rebase on top of 3.17-rc6, minus the alpha patch > > (which was merged into mainline). > > > > I looked at reworking the non-relaxed accessors to imply mmiowb, but it > > quickly got messy as some architectures (e.g. mips) deliberately keep > > mmiowb and readX/writeX separate whilst others (e.g. powerpc) don't trust > > drivers to get mmiowb correct, so add barriers to both. Given that > > arm/arm64/x86 don't care about mmiowb, I've left that as an exercise for > > an architecture that does care. > > > > In order to get this lot merged, we probably want to merge the asm-generic > > patch (1/17) first, so Acks would be much appreciated on the architecture > > bits. > > > > As before, I've included the original cover letter below, as that describes > > what I'm trying to do in more detail. > > > > I've now applied the parts of your series that are required to have > every architecture provide all the 'relaxed' accessors to the > asm-generic tree, on top of Thierry's series. Brill, thanks Arnd! I'll repost what's left during the next cycle, however I think you also need to pick the microblaze patch as it includes before defining its relaxed accessors, so I think you'll get a redefinition warning from the preprocessor. > I had to change your first patch significantly because all the context > changed in his patches. See below for the new version. Thierry, can > you also confirm that this matches up with the intention of your > series? Since that now adds a separate #ifdef for each symbol, I > ended up putting the #ifdef for the relaxed version inside of the > #ifdef for the non-relaxed version, but it could alternatively > be defined outside of it as well. I think both work, as I can't find any architectures that define the relaxed variants but not the non-relaxed versions. > The entire series of both Thierry's and Will's changes is now in > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/asm-generic.git > and should show up in linux-next tomorrow. There are currently > no conflicts against anything else in linux-next. > > Since we're rather close to the merge window, I'd probably leave > this in linux-next for a while longer and submit it all for inclusion > in 3.18 in the second week after 3.17. Makes sense. Will