Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/4] can: cc770: add legacy ISA bus driver for the CC770 and AN82527

[Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>]

On 01/10/2012 12:11 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 10:47 PM, Wolfgang Zarre wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>>> OK. My concern: Can we be sure that 16bit accesses are always
>>> supported
>>>> by the hardware? Does a spinlock_irqsave/spinlock_irqrestore around
>>> the
>>>> 8bit accesses already help?
>>>
>>> Hmmm... are there any register reads that need the
>>> same 'double cycle' sequence ??
>>> If so you need to stop reads being interleaved (with
>>> themselves and writes) so requesting a 16bit access
>>> doesn't help.
>>>
>>> Which means you need a spinlock...
>>>
>>>     David
>>>
>>>
>>
>> @David: Thank You very much for that hint. You are right and to
>> implement correct we need a spinlock.
>>
>> @Wolfgang: I was thinking about Your question regarding 8/16 bit and
>> in fact it wouldn't work at all on a clean 8 bit cards.
>>
>> Further it wouldn't work on 16 bit cards where the MSB is not equal
>> to base port +1 and anyway, it's depending always on how the chip is
>> interfaced to the ISA bus and in which mode the chip is configured.
>>
>>
>> And therefore I was giving David's hint a try in using a spinlock in
>> function cc770_isa_port_write_reg_indirect() and patched as follows:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770.c b/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770.c
>> index 2d12f89..dad6707 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770.c
>> @@ -460,15 +460,6 @@ static netdev_tx_t cc770_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
>> *skb, struct net_device *dev)
>>
>>      stats->tx_bytes += dlc;
>>
>> -
>> -    /*
>> -     * HM: We had some cases of repeated IRQs so make sure the
>> -     * INT is acknowledged I know it's already further up, but
>> -     * doing again fixed the issue
>> -     */
>> -    cc770_write_reg(priv, msgobj[mo].ctrl0,
>> -            MSGVAL_UNC | TXIE_UNC | RXIE_UNC | INTPND_RES);
>> -
>>      return NETDEV_TX_OK;
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -689,12 +680,6 @@ static void cc770_tx_interrupt(struct net_device
>> *dev, unsigned int o)
>>      /* Nothing more to send, switch off interrupts */
>>      cc770_write_reg(priv, msgobj[mo].ctrl0,
>>              MSGVAL_RES | TXIE_RES | RXIE_RES | INTPND_RES);
>> -    /*
>> -     * We had some cases of repeated IRQ so make sure the
>> -     * INT is acknowledged
>> -     */
>> -    cc770_write_reg(priv, msgobj[mo].ctrl0,
>> -            MSGVAL_UNC | TXIE_UNC | RXIE_UNC | INTPND_RES);

Please provide an extra patch for these unrelated changes. If we really
want to remove it.

>>      stats->tx_packets++;
>>      can_get_echo_skb(dev, 0);
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770_isa.c
>> b/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770_isa.c
>> index 4be5fe2..fe39eed 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770_isa.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/cc770/cc770_isa.c
>> @@ -110,6 +110,9 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(bcr, "Bus configuration register
>> (default=0x40 [CBY])");
>>  #define CC770_IOSIZE          0x20
>>  #define CC770_IOSIZE_INDIRECT 0x02
>>
>> +/* Spinlock for cc770_isa_port_write_reg_indirect */
>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK( outb_lock);
>> +
> 
> Do we need a global or a per device spin lock? If this should be a per
> device one, please introduce a cc770_isa_priv and put the spinlock
> there. Don't forget to initialize the spinlock.

Yes, that's what I was thinking as well but in the ocan driver I find:

/*
 * we need a spinlock here, as the address register looks shared between
 * two PC-ECAN devices. Moreover, we need to protect WRT interrupts
 */

Looks like wired hardware. Anyway, a global spinlock might be safer.

Wolfgang.