Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Misbah khan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]


Hi all

I am using "test_bit(),set_bit(),clear_bit() etc" API functions provided by
the Linux kernel. I want to know that if anybody is used it and have full
faith in its operation then please let me know. Driver in the while loop is
calling these API's hence i want to make sure that its operation will remain
stable.

I need your comments in this regard 

Thank you 
Misbah
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-safe-to-use-these-Linux-function-%28test_bit%28%29%2Cset_bit%28%29%2Cclear_bit%28%29%29-in-character-device-driver-for-2.6.10-ppc-kernel.-tf4527008.html#a12916782
Sent from the linuxppc-embedded mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 912 bytes --]

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Scott Wood]

Misbah khan wrote:
> Hi all I am using "test_bit(),set_bit(),clear_bit() etc" API functions 
> provided by the Linux kernel. I want to know that if anybody is used it 
> and have full faith in its operation then please let me know. Driver in 
> the while loop is calling these API's hence i want to make sure that its 
> operation will remain stable.

They're used all over the place.  Is there anything about them that you 
find suspect?

-Scott

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Misbah khan]

Scott Wood-2 wrote:
> 
> Misbah khan wrote:
>> Hi all I am using "test_bit(),set_bit(),clear_bit() etc" API functions 
>> provided by the Linux kernel. I want to know that if anybody is used it 
>> and have full faith in its operation then please let me know. Driver in 
>> the while loop is calling these API's hence i want to make sure that its 
>> operation will remain stable.
> 
> They're used all over the place.  Is there anything about them that you 
> find suspect?
> 
> -Scott
> 
> I have devloped a character driver for FPGA which is memory mapped and
> using these API's to test a bit , set a bit or to clear a bit in the
> memory for eg :-
> 
> /* poll till data is transfered from sdram to dpram */
> 		while((test_bit(DFR_BUSY,(UINT32 *)(\
> 			(void *)mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG))==1)\
> 			&& (delay < MAX_DELAY_BUSY))
> 		{
> 			KDEBUG3(" In the Dfr delay loop \n");
> 			mdelay(DELAY);
> 			delay+=DELAY;
> 		}/* End of while(test_bit(FPGA_BUSY,(void *)register name) */
> 
> 		if(delay==MAX_DELAY_BUSY)
> 		{
> 			KDEBUG1("Out of the the Dfr busy loop \n");
> 			return -1;
> 		}
> 
> People working for FPGA are sure that they are not making the bit high
> where in my driver is returning -1 from the kernel space aborting it after
> running for few minutes or so . Please let me know that This function is
> stable and i should tell them that the driver is stable in its operation
> and they should check it from there side.
> 
> Misbah
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-safe-to-use-these-Linux-function-%28test_bit%28%29%2Cset_bit%28%29%2Cclear_bit%28%29%29-in-character-device-driver-for-2.6.10-ppc-kernel.-tf4527008.html#a12934517
Sent from the linuxppc-embedded mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Jeff Mock]

Misbah khan wrote:
> 
> 
> Scott Wood-2 wrote:
>> Misbah khan wrote:
>>> Hi all I am using "test_bit(),set_bit(),clear_bit() etc" API functions 
>>> provided by the Linux kernel. I want to know that if anybody is used it 
>>> and have full faith in its operation then please let me know. Driver in 
>>> the while loop is calling these API's hence i want to make sure that its 
>>> operation will remain stable.
>> They're used all over the place.  Is there anything about them that you 
>> find suspect?
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> I have devloped a character driver for FPGA which is memory mapped and
>> using these API's to test a bit , set a bit or to clear a bit in the
>> memory for eg :-
>>
>> /* poll till data is transfered from sdram to dpram */
>> 		while((test_bit(DFR_BUSY,(UINT32 *)(\
>> 			(void *)mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG))==1)\
>> 			&& (delay < MAX_DELAY_BUSY))
>> 		{
>> 			KDEBUG3(" In the Dfr delay loop \n");
>> 			mdelay(DELAY);
>> 			delay+=DELAY;
>> 		}/* End of while(test_bit(FPGA_BUSY,(void *)register name) */
>>
>> 		if(delay==MAX_DELAY_BUSY)
>> 		{
>> 			KDEBUG1("Out of the the Dfr busy loop \n");
>> 			return -1;
>> 		}
>>
>> People working for FPGA are sure that they are not making the bit high
>> where in my driver is returning -1 from the kernel space aborting it after
>> running for few minutes or so . Please let me know that This function is
>> stable and i should tell them that the driver is stable in its operation
>> and they should check it from there side.
>>


I think a more more likely source of the problem is that the FPGA
pointer is not cast volatile, or perhaps the FPGA is mapped cached and 
the hardware doesn't always get touched when you think it does.  The bit 
manipulation macros are probably fine.

jeff

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Misbah khan]

Jeff Mock-2 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Misbah khan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Scott Wood-2 wrote:
>>> Misbah khan wrote:
>>>> Hi all I am using "test_bit(),set_bit(),clear_bit() etc" API functions 
>>>> provided by the Linux kernel. I want to know that if anybody is used it 
>>>> and have full faith in its operation then please let me know. Driver in 
>>>> the while loop is calling these API's hence i want to make sure that
>>>> its 
>>>> operation will remain stable.
>>> They're used all over the place.  Is there anything about them that you 
>>> find suspect?
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>>
>>> I have devloped a character driver for FPGA which is memory mapped and
>>> using these API's to test a bit , set a bit or to clear a bit in the
>>> memory for eg :-
>>>
>>> /* poll till data is transfered from sdram to dpram */
>>> 		while((test_bit(DFR_BUSY,(UINT32 *)(\
>>> 			(void *)mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG))==1)\
>>> 			&& (delay < MAX_DELAY_BUSY))
>>> 		{
>>> 			KDEBUG3(" In the Dfr delay loop \n");
>>> 			mdelay(DELAY);
>>> 			delay+=DELAY;
>>> 		}/* End of while(test_bit(FPGA_BUSY,(void *)register name) */
>>>
>>> 		if(delay==MAX_DELAY_BUSY)
>>> 		{
>>> 			KDEBUG1("Out of the the Dfr busy loop \n");
>>> 			return -1;
>>> 		}
>>>
>>> People working for FPGA are sure that they are not making the bit high
>>> where in my driver is returning -1 from the kernel space aborting it
>>> after
>>> running for few minutes or so . Please let me know that This function is
>>> stable and i should tell them that the driver is stable in its operation
>>> and they should check it from there side.
>>>
> 
> 
> I think a more more likely source of the problem is that the FPGA
> pointer is not cast volatile, or perhaps the FPGA is mapped cached and 
> the hardware doesn't always get touched when you think it does.  The bit 
> manipulation macros are probably fine.
> 
> jeff
> 
> FPGA is Indeed mapped non cashed here is the part of the code 
> 
> /* Physical bus memory is mapped */
> 	mmap_reg_ptr=(UINT32 *)ioremap_nocache(PHY_MEM_ADDR,PHY_MEM_SIZE);
> 
> And is it ok if I caste FPGA pointer volatile like this will reduce the
> probability of failure 
> 
> /* poll till data is transfered from sdram to dpram */
> 		while((test_bit(DFR_BUSY,(volatile UINT32 *)(\
> 			(volatile UINT32 *)mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG))==1)\
> 			&& (delay < MAX_DELAY_BUSY))
> 		{
> 			KDEBUG3(" In the Dfr delay loop \n");
> 			mdelay(DELAY);
> 			delay+=DELAY;
> 		}/* End of while(test_bit(FPGA_BUSY,(void *)register name) */
> 
> 		if(delay==MAX_DELAY_BUSY)
> 		{
> 			KDEBUG1("Out of the the Dfr busy loop \n");
> 			return CASHEL_FAILURE;
> 		}
> __________________
> 
> is there anything else that we could do to rely fully in our code.
> 
> Misbah
> _____________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-safe-to-use-these-Linux-function-%28test_bit%28%29%2Cset_bit%28%29%2Cclear_bit%28%29%29-in-character-device-driver-for-2.6.10-ppc-kernel.-tf4527008.html#a12937117
Sent from the linuxppc-embedded mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Misbah khan]

Misbah khan wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Mock-2 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Misbah khan wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Scott Wood-2 wrote:
>>>> Misbah khan wrote:
>>>>> Hi all I am using "test_bit(),set_bit(),clear_bit() etc" API functions 
>>>>> provided by the Linux kernel. I want to know that if anybody is used
>>>>> it 
>>>>> and have full faith in its operation then please let me know. Driver
>>>>> in 
>>>>> the while loop is calling these API's hence i want to make sure that
>>>>> its 
>>>>> operation will remain stable.
>>>> They're used all over the place.  Is there anything about them that you 
>>>> find suspect?
>>>>
>>>> -Scott
>>>>
>>>> I have devloped a character driver for FPGA which is memory mapped and
>>>> using these API's to test a bit , set a bit or to clear a bit in the
>>>> memory for eg :-
>>>>
>>>> /* poll till data is transfered from sdram to dpram */
>>>> 		while((test_bit(DFR_BUSY,(UINT32 *)(\
>>>> 			(void *)mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG))==1)\
>>>> 			&& (delay < MAX_DELAY_BUSY))
>>>> 		{
>>>> 			KDEBUG3(" In the Dfr delay loop \n");
>>>> 			mdelay(DELAY);
>>>> 			delay+=DELAY;
>>>> 		}/* End of while(test_bit(FPGA_BUSY,(void *)register name) */
>>>>
>>>> 		if(delay==MAX_DELAY_BUSY)
>>>> 		{
>>>> 			KDEBUG1("Out of the the Dfr busy loop \n");
>>>> 			return -1;
>>>> 		}
>>>>
>>>> People working for FPGA are sure that they are not making the bit high
>>>> where in my driver is returning -1 from the kernel space aborting it
>>>> after
>>>> running for few minutes or so . Please let me know that This function
>>>> is
>>>> stable and i should tell them that the driver is stable in its
>>>> operation
>>>> and they should check it from there side.
>>>>
>> 
>> 
>> I think a more more likely source of the problem is that the FPGA
>> pointer is not cast volatile, or perhaps the FPGA is mapped cached and 
>> the hardware doesn't always get touched when you think it does.  The bit 
>> manipulation macros are probably fine.
>> 
>> jeff
>> 
>> FPGA is Indeed mapped non cashed here is the part of the code 
>> 
>> /* Physical bus memory is mapped */
>> 	mmap_reg_ptr=(UINT32 *)ioremap_nocache(PHY_MEM_ADDR,PHY_MEM_SIZE);
>> 
>> And is it ok if I caste FPGA pointer volatile like this will reduce the
>> probability of failure 
>> 
>> /* poll till data is transfered from sdram to dpram */
>> 		while((test_bit(DFR_BUSY,(volatile UINT32 *)(\
>> 			(volatile UINT32 *)mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG))==1)\
>> 			&& (delay < MAX_DELAY_BUSY))
>> 		{
>> 			KDEBUG3(" In the Dfr delay loop \n");
>> 			mdelay(DELAY);
>> 			delay+=DELAY;
>> 		}/* End of while(test_bit(FPGA_BUSY,(void *)register name) */
>> 
>> 		if(delay==MAX_DELAY_BUSY)
>> 		{
>> 			KDEBUG1("Out of the the Dfr busy loop \n");
>> 			return CASHEL_FAILURE;
>> 		}
>> __________________
>> 
>> is there anything else that we could do to rely fully in our code.
>> 
>> Misbah
>> MAX_DELAY_BUSY corresponds to 10 ms .Driver should poll the bit for few
>> micro second at the max and come out .
>> 
>> I had earlier tried with ioread32() and iowrite32() wrapper functions but
>> the output i got  is bit swapped hence  i went for direct dereferencing
>> the pointer .
>> 
>> do you think   in_be32()  could be the best approach than direct
>> dereferencing. And about test_bit() function does it looks fine to you 
>> 
>> Misbah 
>> 
>> 
>> _____________________________
>> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
>> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
>> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-safe-to-use-these-Linux-function-%28test_bit%28%29%2Cset_bit%28%29%2Cclear_bit%28%29%29-in-character-device-driver-for-2.6.10-ppc-kernel.-tf4527008.html#a12966462
Sent from the linuxppc-embedded mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Olof Johansson]

First, PLEASE stop quoting your own text. Do not append > in front of
the lines you write yourself in the reply. It makes it impossible to
tell what parts are new and what are old.

On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 07:54:28AM -0700, Misbah khan wrote:

> >> FPGA is Indeed mapped non cashed here is the part of the code 
> >> 
> >> /* Physical bus memory is mapped */
> >> 	mmap_reg_ptr=(UINT32 *)ioremap_nocache(PHY_MEM_ADDR,PHY_MEM_SIZE);
> >> 
> >> And is it ok if I caste FPGA pointer volatile like this will reduce the
> >> probability of failure 

You cannot ever use set_bit/clear_bit to uncacheable memory. Ever. It
uses load-reserve/store-conditional, and they are not legal to use to
uncacheable memory.

Also, regular ioremap() is by default uncacheable, so it's quite adequate
to use in this case, no need to use the _nocache version.

> >> do you think   in_be32()  could be the best approach than direct
> >> dereferencing. And about test_bit() function does it looks fine to you 

You need to use in_be32() + manipulating the value + out_be32(),
yes. Depending on the rest of your driver you might need to protect it
with a spinlock, but that's beyond the scope of this question.


-Olof

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Misbah khan]

Olof Johansson-2 wrote:
> 
> First, PLEASE stop quoting your own text. Do not append > in front of
> the lines you write yourself in the reply. It makes it impossible to
> tell what parts are new and what are old.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 07:54:28AM -0700, Misbah khan wrote:
> 
>> >> FPGA is Indeed mapped non cashed here is the part of the code 
>> >> 
>> >> /* Physical bus memory is mapped */
>> >> 	mmap_reg_ptr=(UINT32 *)ioremap_nocache(PHY_MEM_ADDR,PHY_MEM_SIZE);
>> >> 
>> >> And is it ok if I caste FPGA pointer volatile like this will reduce
>> the
>> >> probability of failure 
> 
> You cannot ever use set_bit/clear_bit to uncacheable memory. Ever. It
> uses load-reserve/store-conditional, and they are not legal to use to
> uncacheable memory.
> 
> Also, regular ioremap() is by default uncacheable, so it's quite adequate
> to use in this case, no need to use the _nocache version.
> 
>> >> do you think   in_be32()  could be the best approach than direct
>> >> dereferencing. And about test_bit() function does it looks fine to you 
> 
> You need to use in_be32() + manipulating the value + out_be32(),
> yes. Depending on the rest of your driver you might need to protect it
> with a spinlock, but that's beyond the scope of this question.
> 
> 
> -Olof
> 
> I am confused that some people tells me to map the memory noncacheble and
> some tells me not. could you tell me which is the best approach and please
> elaborate the reason as well. The part of the code is mentioned above is a
> reference and my concern are as follows:-
> 
> 1. I am mapping 32 KB of memory for which i am using _nocasheble. Is it
> absolutely fine????
> 
> 2. I am directly dereferencing the pointer to the mapped region insted of
> using a wrapper function due to (1) Aready used in the past and have faith
> in it .
>     (2) I had used functions like ioread32() iowrite32() in the past which
> is suggested by rubini in his book on Linux device Driver but the output i
> got was bitswapped .
> 
> 3. test_bit()/clear_bit() are the functions which i am using in my driver
> and in the way i described above , please let me know that is looks fine
> in the Implimention or shall i read the value and mask the bits rather
> than beliving in these functions for eg :-
> 
> dfr_data_ret=*(volatile UINT32 *)((volatile UINT32
> *)mmap_reg_ptr+DATA_STATUS_REG);
> 
> dfr_data_ret&=STATUS_MASK;
> 
> Please reply to clear my doubts.
> 
> Misbah
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-safe-to-use-these-Linux-function-%28test_bit%28%29%2Cset_bit%28%29%2Cclear_bit%28%29%29-in-character-device-driver-for-2.6.10-ppc-kernel.-tf4527008.html#a12973587
Sent from the linuxppc-embedded mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Olof Johansson]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:38:32PM -0700, Misbah khan wrote:

> Olof Johansson-2 wrote:
> > 
> > First, PLEASE stop quoting your own text. Do not append > in front of
> > the lines you write yourself in the reply. It makes it impossible to
> > tell what parts are new and what are old.

Please read the above again, since you didn't fix your mailer.

Also, make sure it doesn't prepend spaces in front of the lines you are
writing.

> > I am confused that some people tells me to map the memory noncacheble and
> > some tells me not. could you tell me which is the best approach and please
> > elaborate the reason as well. The part of the code is mentioned above is a
> > reference and my concern are as follows:-

It depends on your application and how the FPGA is attached. Buf if it is
attached outside of the coherence domain (for example on PCI), then you
should map it uncacheable. Otherwise you will have to do manual flushing
of caches to make sure writes make it out to the device, and also flush
any copy in cache before you read any register. In other words, it makes
things considerably more complicated and error-prone.

> > 1. I am mapping 32 KB of memory for which i am using _nocasheble. Is it
> > absolutely fine????

Just use ioremap().

> > 2. I am directly dereferencing the pointer to the mapped region insted of
> > using a wrapper function due to (1) Aready used in the past and have faith
> > in it .

I don't care if you have faith in it or not, it's still not the correct
way to do it. It might work right some of the time by pure luck but it
is the incorrect way of accessing device memory.

> >     (2) I had used functions like ioread32() iowrite32() in the past which
> > is suggested by rubini in his book on Linux device Driver but the output i
> > got was bitswapped .

I assume you mean byte swapped and not bit swapped.

Are your registers on the device big- or little endian?

If they are big endian, use in_be32/out_be32. If they're little endian, use
in_le32/out_le32. That will take care of any swapping for you.

> > 3. test_bit()/clear_bit() are the functions which i am using in my driver
> > and in the way i described above , please let me know that is looks fine
> > in the Implimention

No it is not fine. You cannot use set_bit/clear_bit against noncacheable
memory. EVER.

> >  or shall i read the value and mask the bits rather
> > than beliving in these functions for eg :-
> >
> > dfr_data_ret=*(volatile UINT32 *)((volatile UINT32
> > *)mmap_reg_ptr+DATA_STATUS_REG);
> > 
> > dfr_data_ret&=STATUS_MASK;
> > 
> > Please reply to clear my doubts.

Just do what I told you earlier:

To read the status register, mask out the STATUS_MASK and write it
back, do:

val = in_be32(mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG);
val &= STATUS_MASK;
out_be32(MMAP_REG_PTR + DATA_STATUS_REG, val);


-Olof

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Misbah khan]

Hi ...
I did followed you and it worked as well. I really Thank you for it. 

At one Place i am doing memcpy() of floating point data to the memory mapped
registers, what could be the substitute of it like "memcpy_toio() " which is
suggested in the Book. I am working BE architecture.

I would really appreaciate if you would let me know the defineation of these
wrapper functions (in_be32,out_be32(),ioread32(),iowrite32(),etc) so that i
could have the clear idea of the reason for not directly dreferencing the
Pointer.

Misbah

Olof Johansson-2 wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:38:32PM -0700, Misbah khan wrote:
> 
>> Olof Johansson-2 wrote:
>> > 
>> > First, PLEASE stop quoting your own text. Do not append > in front of
>> > the lines you write yourself in the reply. It makes it impossible to
>> > tell what parts are new and what are old.
> 
> Please read the above again, since you didn't fix your mailer.
> 
> Also, make sure it doesn't prepend spaces in front of the lines you are
> writing.
> 
>> > I am confused that some people tells me to map the memory noncacheble
>> and
>> > some tells me not. could you tell me which is the best approach and
>> please
>> > elaborate the reason as well. The part of the code is mentioned above
>> is a
>> > reference and my concern are as follows:-
> 
> It depends on your application and how the FPGA is attached. Buf if it is
> attached outside of the coherence domain (for example on PCI), then you
> should map it uncacheable. Otherwise you will have to do manual flushing
> of caches to make sure writes make it out to the device, and also flush
> any copy in cache before you read any register. In other words, it makes
> things considerably more complicated and error-prone.
> 
>> > 1. I am mapping 32 KB of memory for which i am using _nocasheble. Is it
>> > absolutely fine????
> 
> Just use ioremap().
> 
>> > 2. I am directly dereferencing the pointer to the mapped region insted
>> of
>> > using a wrapper function due to (1) Aready used in the past and have
>> faith
>> > in it .
> 
> I don't care if you have faith in it or not, it's still not the correct
> way to do it. It might work right some of the time by pure luck but it
> is the incorrect way of accessing device memory.
> 
>> >     (2) I had used functions like ioread32() iowrite32() in the past
>> which
>> > is suggested by rubini in his book on Linux device Driver but the
>> output i
>> > got was bitswapped .
> 
> I assume you mean byte swapped and not bit swapped.
> 
> Are your registers on the device big- or little endian?
> 
> If they are big endian, use in_be32/out_be32. If they're little endian,
> use
> in_le32/out_le32. That will take care of any swapping for you.
> 
>> > 3. test_bit()/clear_bit() are the functions which i am using in my
>> driver
>> > and in the way i described above , please let me know that is looks
>> fine
>> > in the Implimention
> 
> No it is not fine. You cannot use set_bit/clear_bit against noncacheable
> memory. EVER.
> 
>> >  or shall i read the value and mask the bits rather
>> > than beliving in these functions for eg :-
>> >
>> > dfr_data_ret=*(volatile UINT32 *)((volatile UINT32
>> > *)mmap_reg_ptr+DATA_STATUS_REG);
>> > 
>> > dfr_data_ret&=STATUS_MASK;
>> > 
>> > Please reply to clear my doubts.
> 
> Just do what I told you earlier:
> 
> To read the status register, mask out the STATUS_MASK and write it
> back, do:
> 
> val = in_be32(mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG);
> val &= STATUS_MASK;
> out_be32(MMAP_REG_PTR + DATA_STATUS_REG, val);
> 
> 
> -Olof
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-safe-to-use-these-Linux-function-%28test_bit%28%29%2Cset_bit%28%29%2Cclear_bit%28%29%29-in-character-device-driver-for-2.6.10-ppc-kernel.-tf4527008.html#a13039401
Sent from the linuxppc-embedded mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Grant Likely]

On 10/4/07, Misbah khan <misbah_khan@engineer.com> wrote:
>
> Hi ...
> I did followed you and it worked as well. I really Thank you for it.
>
> At one Place i am doing memcpy() of floating point data to the memory mapped
> registers, what could be the substitute of it like "memcpy_toio() " which is
> suggested in the Book. I am working BE architecture.
>
> I would really appreaciate if you would let me know the defineation of these
> wrapper functions (in_be32,out_be32(),ioread32(),iowrite32(),etc) so that i
> could have the clear idea of the reason for not directly dreferencing the
> Pointer.

You don't want to directly dereference pointers to device registers
because you don't want the processor or compiler to reorder your
register accesses.  The in/out_* wrappers keeps the compiler from
reordering things, and the wrappers contain the 'sync' instruction
which prevents the processor from reordering operations at runtime.

g.
-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195

Re: Is it safe to use these Linux function (test_bit(), set_bit(), clear_bit()) in character device driver for 2.6.10 ppc kernel.

[Scott Wood]

Misbah khan wrote:
> 
> 
> Scott Wood-2 wrote:
>> They're used all over the place.  Is there anything about them that you 
>> find suspect?
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> I have devloped a character driver for FPGA which is memory mapped and
>> using these API's to test a bit , set a bit or to clear a bit in the
>> memory for eg :-

Please don't use quote markers on newly added text.

>> /* poll till data is transfered from sdram to dpram */
>> 		while((test_bit(DFR_BUSY,(UINT32 *)(\
>> 			(void *)mmap_reg_ptr + DATA_STATUS_REG))==1)\
>> 			&& (delay < MAX_DELAY_BUSY))

You should use in_be32() rather than direct dereferencing.

>> 		{
>> 			KDEBUG3(" In the Dfr delay loop \n");
>> 			mdelay(DELAY);
>> 			delay+=DELAY;
>> 		}/* End of while(test_bit(FPGA_BUSY,(void *)register name) */
>>
>> 		if(delay==MAX_DELAY_BUSY)
>> 		{
>> 			KDEBUG1("Out of the the Dfr busy loop \n");
>> 			return -1;
>> 		}
>>
>> People working for FPGA are sure that they are not making the bit high
>> where in my driver is returning -1 from the kernel space aborting it after
>> running for few minutes or so .

I don't suppose the "few minutes" corresponds to MAX_DELAY_BUSY?

-Scott