[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 01/23] ppc: Add initial memory barrier macros

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 02/12/2013 12:44:16 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Scott Wood  
> <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
> > On 02/08/2013 09:11:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>
> >> These are available on other architectures, so add them on ppc.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >> ---
> >> Changes in v5: None
> >> Changes in v4: None
> >> Changes in v3: None
> >> Changes in v2: None
> >>
> >>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h | 8 ++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h  
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h
> >> index 1f12c29..1bf12f5 100644
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h
> >> @@ -317,4 +317,12 @@ static inline phys_addr_t virt_to_phys(void *  
> vaddr)
> >>  #endif
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * TODO: The kernel offers some more advanced versions of  
> barriers, it
> >> might
> >> + * have some advantages to use them instead of the simple one  
> here.
> >> + */
> >> +#define dmb()          __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
> >> +#define __iormb()      dmb()
> >> +#define __iowmb()      dmb()
> >
> >
> > What is the definition of these?  Given that we already have an
> > architecture-independent barrier(), I assume this is meant to be an  
> actual
> > hardware barrier rather than a compiler barrier, so this is not a  
> correct
> > implementation.
> 
> They were introduced in ARM in commit 3c0659b5, so I am really just
> following along with that. Yes the naming doesn't make a lot of sense,
> but on the other hand I don't think we necessarily want an actual
> hardware barrier in our writel()s.

We do have a hardware barrier in writel() on PPC (ignoring the broken  
never-used little-endian implementation, which should just be removed),  
and it should stay that way.

I do not think we should be introducing anything that looks like a  
hardware barrier but isn't, unless the semantics of a particular  
barrier are guaranteed by a particular platform without needing a  
barrier instruction.  And in that case there had better be a document  
somewhere that explains what the semantics are.

> This at least makes sure that the
> compiler writes in the right order - perhaps the intent is that that
> rest is best left to the hardware?

Regardless of what one might think is "best", it isn't left to hardware  
on many platforms, including PPC.

-Scott