linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5628B141.1010307@xilinx.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:49:53 +0200
From:	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:	Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
	Soren Brinkmann <sorenb@...inx.com>,
	Anirudha Sarangi <anirudh@...inx.com>,
	"mkl@...gutronix.de" <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	"wg@...ndegger.com" <wg@...ndegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of
 ioread/iowrite

On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:34:53 Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote:
>>> On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
>>>> The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so
>>>> readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO.
>>>> During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit processor
>>>> while sending lot of packets observed that the tx packet drop with
>>>> iowrite Putting the barriers for each tx fifo register write fixes
>>>> this issue Instead of barriers using writel also fixed this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kedareswara rao Appana <appanad@...inx.com>
>>>
>>> The two should really do the same thing: iowrite32() is just a static inline calling
>>> writel() on both ARM32 and ARM64. On which kernel version did you observe the
>>> difference? It's possible that an older version used CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP,
>>> which made this slightly more expensive.
>>
>> I observed this issue with the 4.0.0 kernel version
> 
> Is it possible that you have nonstandard patches on your kernel? If so, can
> you send a diff against the mainline version?

Kedar: Can you please retest this on mainline kernel?
We shouldn't have any patches which should influence this.

Thanks,
Michal
--
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/