[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:38:31 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: linux@....linux.org.uk
Cc: arnd@...db.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com,
gcc@....gnu.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peter.maydell@...aro.org
Subject: Re: ARM unaligned MMIO access with attribute((packed))
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:37:02 +0000
> 1. there's no way to tell GCC that the inline assembly is a load
> instruction and therefore it needs to schedule the following
> instructions appropriately.
Just add a dummy '"m" (pointer)' asm input argument to the inline asm
statement. Just make sure "typeof(pointer)" has a size matching the
size of the load your are performing.
> 2. GCC will needlessly reload pointers from structures and other such
> behaviour because it can't be told clearly what the inline assembly
> is doing, so the inline asm needs to have a "memory" clobber.
This behavior is correct, and in fact needed. Writing to chip registers
can trigger changes to arbitrary main memory locations.
> 3. It seems to misses out using the pre-index addressing, prefering to
> create add/sub instructions prior to each inline assembly load/store.
Yes, this is indeed a problem.
But you really need that memory clobber there whether you like it or
not, see above.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists