From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754217AbbAESWg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:22:36 -0500 Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:39978 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932097AbbAESWe (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:22:34 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 104.193.169.186 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/ntVDaHfLCSzlI5M2ZS8vV Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:18:24 -0800 From: Tony Lindgren To: Abhilash Kesavan Cc: Catalin Marinas , Philipp Zabel , Will Deacon , Santosh Shilimkar , "heiko@sntech.de" , "Li.Xiubo@freescale.com" , "shc_work@mail.ru" , "nicoleotsuka@gmail.com" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "corbet@lwn.net" , "padma.v@samsung.com" , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "shawn.guo@freescale.com" , "bcousson@baylibre.com" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "kgene@kernel.org" , Pawel Moll Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] misc: sram: switch to ioremap_wc from ioremap Message-ID: <20150105181823.GG4081@atomide.com> References: <1418266726-12004-1-git-send-email-a.kesavan@samsung.com> <1418266726-12004-2-git-send-email-a.kesavan@samsung.com> <1418292513.3188.4.camel@pengutronix.de> <20141211103919.GA6067@arm.com> <1418298046.3188.10.camel@pengutronix.de> <20141211145849.GH31456@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Abhilash Kesavan [141217 04:37]: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Catalin Marinas > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:40:46AM +0000, Philipp Zabel wrote: > >> Hi Will, > >> > >> Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2014, 10:39 +0000 schrieb Will Deacon: > >> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:08:33AM +0000, Philipp Zabel wrote: > >> > > Hi Abhilash, > >> > > > >> > > Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2014, 08:28 +0530 schrieb Abhilash Kesavan: > >> > > > Currently, the SRAM allocator returns device memory via ioremap. > >> > > > This causes issues on ARM64 when the internal SoC SRAM allocated by > >> > > > the generic sram driver is used for audio playback. The destination > >> > > > buffer address (which is ioremapped SRAM) is not 64-bit aligned for > >> > > > certain streams (e.g. 44.1k sampling rate). In such cases we get > >> > > > unhandled alignment faults. Use ioremap_wc in place of ioremap which > >> > > > gives us normal non-cacheable memory instead of device memory. > >> > > > >> > > Could this break the omap_bus_sync() implementation in > >> > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c? > >> > > > >> > > void omap_bus_sync(void) > >> > > { > >> > > if (dram_sync && sram_sync) { > >> > > writel_relaxed(readl_relaxed(dram_sync), dram_sync); > >> > > writel_relaxed(readl_relaxed(sram_sync), sram_sync); > >> > > isb(); > >> > > } > >> > > } > >> > > > >> > > It is used in wmb() and omap_do_wfi() to drain interconnect write > >> > > buffers on omap4/5. If sram_sync is mapped with write-combining, could > >> > > the last write to sram_sync stay stuck in the write-combining buffer > >> > > until after the function returns? > >> > > >> > I think you have that issue anyway, since you can get an early write > >> > response even if you use ioremap. Does the write to sram_sync have > >> > side-effects that we need to wait for? > >> > >> [Added Tony Lindgren and Santosh Shilimkar to Cc:] > >> I don't know. > > > > In addition to Will's question, do you care about the access size? > > ioremap() returns Device memory which is bufferable (early > > acknowledgement) but it guarantees the access size. With write > > combining, you may get a different access size than requested. > > From the existing dts files, omap, imx, rockchip and exynos seem to be > the only users of the sram allocator code. I have tested this on > Exynos5420, Exynos5800 and Exynos7; there is no change in behavior > seen on these boards. Tested-by for other SoCs would be appreciated. Sorry for the delay, these seems to boot OK on omap4, so from that point of view: Tested-by: Tony Lindgren