Re: [PATCH 1 of 3] Introduce __memcpy_toio32

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:41:55PM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> +/*
> + * MMIO copy routines.  These are guaranteed to operate in units denoted
> + * by their names.  This style of operation is required by some devices.
> + */

Using kdoc style for new code is nice.

> +extern void fastcall __memcpy_toio32(volatile void __iomem *to, const void *from, size_t count);
> +

Minor rant: extern is always redundant for function prototypes in C.
I'd prefer that we adopt a standard of not using extern for functions,
as it would make use of extern for variables (almost always
inappropriate, especially in C files) stick out more.

While people claim this has some documentation value ("I _meant_ for
this to be exported"), I think it actually has a net negative effect,
as quite a number of people actually think the "extern" keyword does
some unspecified magic here and ignore the namespace pollution of their
theoretically "un-externed" but not explicitly static functions.

There isn't any sort of consensus on this point as far as I know, so
this is just me venting.

>  /* Create a virtual mapping cookie for an IO port range */
>  extern void __iomem *ioport_map(unsigned long port, unsigned int nr);
>  extern void ioport_unmap(void __iomem *);
> diff -r 789a24638663 -r 7b7b442a4d63 lib/iomap.c
> --- a/lib/iomap.c	Tue Dec 27 09:27:10 2005 +0800
> +++ b/lib/iomap.c	Tue Dec 27 15:41:48 2005 -0800
> @@ -187,6 +187,22 @@
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(iowrite16_rep);
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(iowrite32_rep);
>  
> +/*
> + * Copy data to an MMIO region.  MMIO space accesses are performed
> + * in the sizes indicated in each function's name.
> + */
> +void fastcall __memcpy_toio32(volatile void __iomem *d, const void *s, size_t count)
> +{
> +	volatile u32 __iomem *dst = d;
> +	const u32 *src = s;
> +
> +	while (--count >= 0) {
> +		__raw_writel(*src++, dst++);
> +}

Suspicious use of volatile - writel is doing the actual write, this
function never does a dereference. As you've already got private
copies of the pointers already in s and d, it's perfectily reasonable
and idiomatic to do:

	while (--count >= 0)
		__raw_writel(*s++, d++);

I'd personally write this as:

	while (count--)
		__raw_writel(*s++, d++);

And as you appear to be using the __raw.. version to avoid repeated
mb()s, you probably ought to tack one on at the end.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.