[PATCH v4 1/4] lib: Introduce atomic MMIO modify

[richard@nod.at (Richard Weinberger)]

Am 24.08.2013 22:49, schrieb Ezequiel Garcia:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:35:34PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 24.08.2013 21:58, schrieb Ezequiel Garcia:
>>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 08:27:10PM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Ezequiel Garcia
>>>> <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>> Some platforms have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
>>>>> subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
>>>>> thread-safe access of such regions through a spinlock-protected API.
>>>>>
>>>>> Concurrent access is protected with a single spinlock for the
>>>>> entire MMIO address space. While this protects shared-registers,
>>>>> it also serializes access to unrelated/unshared registers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  include/linux/io.h |  5 +++++
>>>>>  lib/Makefile       |  2 +-
>>>>>  lib/atomicio.c     | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 lib/atomicio.c
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/io.h b/include/linux/io.h
>>>>> index f4f42fa..c331dcb 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/io.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/io.h
>>>>> @@ -101,4 +101,9 @@ static inline void arch_phys_wc_del(int handle)
>>>>>  #define arch_phys_wc_add arch_phys_wc_add
>>>>>  #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_IO_MODIFY
>>>>> +/* Atomic MMIO-wide IO modify */
>>>>> +extern void atomic_io_modify(void __iomem *reg, u32 mask, u32 set);
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>>  #endif /* _LINUX_IO_H */
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
>>>>> index 7baccfd..695d6e2 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/Makefile
>>>>> +++ b/lib/Makefile
>>>>> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmdline.o \
>>>>>          sha1.o md5.o irq_regs.o reciprocal_div.o argv_split.o \
>>>>>          proportions.o flex_proportions.o prio_heap.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \
>>>>>          is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o kobject_uevent.o \
>>>>> -        earlycpio.o percpu-refcount.o
>>>>> +        earlycpio.o percpu-refcount.o atomicio.o
>>>>>
>>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS) += usercopy.o
>>>>>  lib-$(CONFIG_MMU) += ioremap.o
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/atomicio.c b/lib/atomicio.c
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..1750f9d
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/lib/atomicio.c
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
>>>>> +#include <linux/io.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_IO_MODIFY
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Generic atomic MMIO modify.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Allows thread-safe access to registers shared by unrelated subsystems.
>>>>> + * The access is protected by a single MMIO-wide lock.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Optimized variants can be implemented on a per-architecture basis.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(__io_lock);
>>>>> +void atomic_io_modify(void __iomem *reg, u32 mask, u32 set)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       unsigned long flags;
>>>>> +       u32 value;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&__io_lock, flags);
>>>>> +       value = readl(reg) & ~mask;
>>>>> +       value |= (set & mask);
>>>>> +       writel(value, reg);
>>>>> +       raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&__io_lock, flags);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic_io_modify);
>>>>
>>>> Why not the default case EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because I copy-pasted the export from some other lib/.. :-)
>>>
>>> Mind explaining me the difference, why you say _GPL it's the default,
>>> and why EXPORT_SYMBOL is more frequently used in lib/ ?
>>
>> As the kernel is GPL it is the default case to mark new things as GPL symbols.
>> If your new feature is a core feature which is used by mostly everyone, EXPORT_SYMBOL()
>> is appropriate.
>> I.e. having kmalloc() and friends EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() would be a bad idea. :)
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL() seems to be often used in lib/ because most lib/ things are core features.
>>
> 
> In that case, EXPORT_SYMBOL is certainly the most appropriate one,
> for the reasons you stated above.

Okay, did not realize that your feature is that fundamental. :-)

Thanks,
//richard