From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@kalrayinc.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
Jan Bottorff <janb@os.amperecomputing.com>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>,
Yann Sionneau <yann@sionneau.net>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Jan Dabros <jsd@semihalf.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: Fix corrupted memory seen in the ISR
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:51:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZQm1UyZ0g7KxRW3a@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <da400d3e-a357-1ae8-cb92-728cc4974b67@kalrayinc.com>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:38:22PM +0200, Yann Sionneau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/19/23 12:19, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > I also agree that a wmb() in the i2c driver is not the more elegant fix.
> > > For similar reasons, we hid barriers in the write*() macros, drivers
> > > need to stay architecture-agnostic as much as possible.
> > Exactly my thinking. I wanted to read this patch discussion later this
> > week. But from glimpsing at it so far, I already wondered why there
> > isn't a memory barrier in the final accessor to the register.
>
> The regmap accessors used by the designware driver end up calling
> writel_relaxed() and readl_relaxed() : https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.6-rc2/source/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c#L71
OK, since it ends up with the *_relaxed() accessors, there are no
barriers here. I wonder whether the regmap API should have both standard
and relaxed variants. If a regmap driver does not populate the
.reg_write_relaxed etc. members, a regmap_write_relaxed() would just
fall back to regmap_write().
We went through similar discussions many years ago around the I/O
accessors and decided to add the barriers to readl/writel() even if they
become more expensive, correctness should be first. The relaxed variants
were added as optimisations if specific memory ordering was not
required. I think the regmap API should follow the same semantics, go
for correctness first as you can't tell what the side-effect of a
regmap_write() is (e.g. kicking off DMA or causing an interrupt on
another CPU).
> In those cases I would say the smp_* barriers are what we are supposed to
> use, isn't it?
While smp_* is ok, it really depends on what the regmap_write() does. Is
it a write to a shared peripheral (if not, you may need a DSB)? Does the
regmap_write() caller know this? That's why I think having the barrier
in dw_reg_write() is better.
If you do want to stick to a fix in i2c_dw_xfer_init(), you could go for
dma_wmb(). While this is not strictly DMA, it's sharing data with
another coherent agent (a different CPU in this instance). The smp_wmb()
is more about communication via memory not involving I/O. But this still
assumes that the caller knows regmap_write() ends up with an I/O
write*() (potentially relaxed).
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-19 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-13 23:29 [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: Fix corrupted memory seen in the ISR Jan Bottorff
2023-09-14 18:46 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-14 18:47 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-14 20:52 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-15 12:44 ` Jarkko Nikula
2023-09-15 15:21 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-16 1:47 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-17 0:01 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-17 20:08 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-09-18 23:14 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-19 3:45 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-19 9:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-09-19 10:19 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-19 12:38 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-09-19 14:51 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2023-09-19 14:55 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-19 18:54 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-19 21:05 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-20 9:08 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-20 13:27 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-09-20 19:14 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-25 12:54 ` Serge Semin
2023-09-25 19:39 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-27 19:38 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-09-29 8:48 ` Jarkko Nikula
2023-10-26 11:18 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-10-31 0:12 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-10-31 5:51 ` Wolfram Sang
2023-10-31 8:44 ` Yann Sionneau
2023-10-31 12:10 ` Jarkko Nikula
2023-10-31 13:06 ` Serge Semin
2023-11-01 16:51 ` Jan Bottorff
2023-09-20 11:03 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-09-20 10:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-09-20 11:05 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZQm1UyZ0g7KxRW3a@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@kernel.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fancer.lancer@gmail.com \
--cc=janb@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jsd@semihalf.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=wsa@kernel.org \
--cc=yann@sionneau.net \
--cc=ysionneau@kalrayinc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox