From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751326AbeFDUQm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:16:42 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:42312 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751098AbeFDUQk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:16:40 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLzNTZeSIFZpzrd8SDsX2SJmVUSLwatcyTrepSJUtltFfBrcFm8FH7tBVl9vzRO8mi28biO+A==
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:16:37 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_ring: switch to dma_XX barriers for rpmsg
Message-ID: <20180604201637.GB9960@builder>
References: <1524159181-351878-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
 <5047d08c-9f9e-2902-d425-1fac849ce5b4@redhat.com>
 <20180419204017-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <524fb400-2325-f60b-7e03-15be01888afc@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <524fb400-2325-f60b-7e03-15be01888afc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu 19 Apr 10:48 PDT 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> On 19/04/2018 19:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> This should be okay, but I wonder if there should be a virtio_wmb(...)
> >> or an "if (weak_barriers) wmb()" before the "writel" in vm_notify
> >> (drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Paolo
> > That one uses weak barriers AFAIK.
> > 
> > IIUC you mean rproc_virtio_notify.
> > 
> > I suspect it works because specific kick callbacks have a barrier internally.
> 
> Yes, that one.  At least keystone_rproc_kick doesn't seem to have a barrier.
> 

Afaict you're correct. My expectation is that the kick ensures write
ordering internally and if I read this correct keystone_rproc_kick()
results in a writel_relaxed() in the gpio driver.

@Suman, can you please have a look at this.

Thanks Paolo,
Bjorn