linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] dmaengine: qcom_bam_dma: clear BAM interrupt only if it is rised

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: <565EEA99.3070207@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:56:57 +0200
From:	Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dmaengine: qcom_bam_dma: clear BAM interrupt only if
 it is rised

On 12/01/2015 12:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2015 11:14:57 Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>> +       if (srcs & BAM_IRQ) {
>>                 clr_mask = readl_relaxed(bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_STTS));
>>  
>> -       /* don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM registers */
>> -       mb();
>> +               /*
>> +                * don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM
>> +                * registers
>> +                */
>> +               mb();
>>  
>> -       writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR));
>> +               writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR));
>> +       }
>>
> 
> I think the comment here should be moved: change the writel_relaxed()
> to writel(), which already includes the appropriate barriers, and

If we agree with such a change it should be subject to another patch.

> add a comment at the readl_relaxed() to explain why it doesn't need
> a barrier.

Infact I'm not sure that readl_relaxed(BAM_IRQ_STTS) does not need
barrier. If I read the code above correctly the mb() should guarantee
that all load and store operations before it are happened before the
write to BAM_IRQ_CLR register, and on the other hand if we replace
writel_relaxed with writel, the writel has wmb() which guarantees only
store operations. Did I miss something?

-- 
regards,
Stan
--
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/