[PATCH] mmc: msm: fix dma usage not to use internal APIs

[dwalker@codeaurora.org (Daniel Walker)]

On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:12 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:02:46PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Strongly ordered requires no additional maintainence to ensure that writes
> > to it are immediately visible to hardware.  However, ARMv6 and later
> > requires a data synchronization barrier to ensure that writes to 'normal
> > non-cachable' memory are visible before writes to 'device' memory complete.
> > 
> > >From what I can see, the driver does use writel() as does the DMA driver
> > in arch/arm/mach-msm/dma.c, so there should be no problem with ARMv6 CPUs.
> 
> BTW, it looks like the work-around was added at the time when writel() did
> not have the necessary barriers:
> 
> commit 56a8b5b8ae81bd766e527a0e5274a087c3c1109d
> Author: San Mehat <san@google.com>
> Date:   Sat Nov 21 12:29:46 2009 -0800
> 
>     mmc: msm_sdcc: Reduce command timeouts and improve reliability.
> 
> +       n = dma_map_sg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), host->dma.sg,
> +                       host->dma.num_ents, host->dma.dir);
> +/* dsb inside dma_map_sg will write nc out to mem as well */
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     so we are talking about ARMv6 or later as previous versions did not
>     have dsb.

The changes were created in early Nov. 2009 on a 2.6.29 kernel,

> vs
> 
> commit e936771a76a7b61ca55a5142a3de835c2e196871
> Author: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Date:   Wed Jul 28 22:00:54 2010 +0100
> 
>     ARM: 6271/1: Introduce *_relaxed() I/O accessors
> 
> commit 79f64dbf68c8a9779a7e9a25e0a9f0217a25b57a
> Author: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Date:   Wed Jul 28 22:01:55 2010 +0100

well before these two commits.

> So the necessary barriers were found to be necessary way after MSM
> discovered the problem.  It _is_ related to the ARMv6 weakly ordered
> memory model, and it _was_ a bug in the ARM IO accessor implementation.

Ok, so unless Brent wants to step in an give more comments on this it
sounds like the problem has been fix already ..

> It would've been nice to have had the problem discussed at architecture
> level so maybe the problem could've been found sooner and fixed earlier.

Yes .. At least we're communicating now ..

Daniel


-- 
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum.