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
next prev 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