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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox