public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v2] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for usages of readb, writeb and friends.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:40:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D1B0228.7000608@googlemail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101222080206.A0CA3EA652A@gemini.denx.de>

On 22.12.2010 09:02, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Alexander Holler,
>
> In message<1292711230-3234-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de>  you wrote:
>> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
>> avoid that as done in the kernel.
> ...
>> +#define writeb(v,c)			({ __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); })
>> +#define writew(v,c)			({ __iowmb(); __arch_putw(v,c); })
>> +#define writel(v,c)			({ __iowmb(); __arch_putl(v,c); })
>
> http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/arm-gnu/msg03990.html  explains
> why this construct is causing errors in cases where an additional read
> from the address is unsupported.

Just for the record:

The trick is to ensure that the __arch_putx() containing the volatile 
is not the last statement in the GCC statement-expression. So, using 
something like

#define writeb(v,c)         ({ __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); v;})

(note the additional 'v;') should result in correct code, too.

The patches sent by Wolfgang and Alexander using

#define writeb(v,c)	do { __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); } while (0)

do the same with a slightly different syntax, so these patches are 
fine, too.

Thanks

Dirk

> Can you please try the following patch instead?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> From 4672bbddaf8ce7e17a99ba737782cc527d46e5eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alexander Holler<holler@ahsoftware.de>
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:27:10 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for readb, writeb and friends.
>
> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
> avoid that as done in the kernel.
>
> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of that
> gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in __arch_getl().
> Anyway, using a definition as in the kernel headers avoids such optimizations when
> gcc 4.5.1 is used.
>
> Maybe the headers as used in the current linux-kernel should be used,
> but to avoid large changes, I've just added a small change to the current headers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Holler<holler@ahsoftware.de>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk<wd@denx.de>
> ---
>   arch/arm/include/asm/io.h |   32 ++++++++++++++++++++------------
>   1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> index ff1518e..647503a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> @@ -117,21 +117,29 @@ extern inline void __raw_readsl(unsigned int addr, void *data, int longlen)
>   		*buf++ = __arch_getl(addr);
>   }
>
> -#define __raw_writeb(v,a)		__arch_putb(v,a)
> -#define __raw_writew(v,a)		__arch_putw(v,a)
> -#define __raw_writel(v,a)		__arch_putl(v,a)
> +#define __raw_writeb(v,a)	__arch_putb(v,a)
> +#define __raw_writew(v,a)	__arch_putw(v,a)
> +#define __raw_writel(v,a)	__arch_putl(v,a)
>
> -#define __raw_readb(a)			__arch_getb(a)
> -#define __raw_readw(a)			__arch_getw(a)
> -#define __raw_readl(a)			__arch_getl(a)
> +#define __raw_readb(a)		__arch_getb(a)
> +#define __raw_readw(a)		__arch_getw(a)
> +#define __raw_readl(a)		__arch_getl(a)
>
> -#define writeb(v,a)			__arch_putb(v,a)
> -#define writew(v,a)			__arch_putw(v,a)
> -#define writel(v,a)			__arch_putl(v,a)
> +/*
> + * 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()
> +
> +#define writeb(v,c)	do { __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); } while (0)
> +#define writew(v,c)	do { __iowmb(); __arch_putw(v,c); } while (0)
> +#define writel(v,c)	do { __iowmb(); __arch_putl(v,c); } while (0)
>
> -#define readb(a)			__arch_getb(a)
> -#define readw(a)			__arch_getw(a)
> -#define readl(a)			__arch_getl(a)
> +#define readb(c)	({ u8  __v = __arch_getb(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +#define readw(c)	({ u16 __v = __arch_getw(c); __iormb(); __v; })
> +#define readl(c)	({ u32 __v = __arch_getl(c); __iormb(); __v; })
>
>   /*
>    * The compiler seems to be incapable of optimising constants

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-12-29  9:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-12-18 22:27 [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v2] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for usages of readb, writeb and friends Alexander Holler
2010-12-19  7:51 ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-19 10:22   ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-19 11:28     ` Albert ARIBAUD
2010-12-19 16:34       ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-19 18:45     ` John Rigby
2010-12-19 19:59       ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-20  0:39         ` John Rigby
2010-12-20  0:56           ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-20  4:18             ` John Rigby
2010-12-20  6:07               ` John Rigby
2010-12-20  6:49                 ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-20  7:37                   ` John Rigby
2010-12-20 16:08                     ` John Rigby
2010-12-20 16:12                       ` John Rigby
2011-01-17  4:35                       ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-20 17:12                 ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-21  0:25                   ` John Rigby
2010-12-21  0:46                     ` John Rigby
2010-12-21  7:11                       ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-21  7:21                         ` Albert ARIBAUD
2010-12-21  8:05                           ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-21  8:17                             ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-12-21  8:37                               ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-21  8:35                           ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-21  8:46                             ` John Rigby
2010-12-21 10:38                               ` Albert ARIBAUD
2010-12-21 10:53                                 ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-12-21 12:35                                   ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-21 12:51                                     ` Albert ARIBAUD
2010-12-21 13:30                                       ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-21 14:33                                         ` Albert ARIBAUD
2010-12-21 19:52                                           ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-12-21 20:04                                             ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-21 21:49                                               ` Albert ARIBAUD
2010-12-22  0:11                                               ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-22  7:02                                                 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2010-12-22  7:18                                                   ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-22  7:52                                                     ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-12-23 16:40                                                       ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-22  9:56                                                   ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-21 13:38                     ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-22  8:02 ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-12-22 11:23   ` Alexander Holler
2010-12-29  9:40   ` Dirk Behme [this message]
2010-12-29 23:10     ` Alessandro Rubini
2010-12-30 10:39       ` Dirk Behme
2011-01-09 22:03       ` Wolfgang Denk

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=4D1B0228.7000608@googlemail.com \
    --to=dirk.behme@googlemail.com \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /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