[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADyBb7tR4+78k52JrVZGo9FMuO8a8RBTTYK7PBx1RzP3Lx9snQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 23:50:19 +0800
From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
wei@...hat.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: use readq to
get 64-bit CNTVCT
Hi Will,
On 25 July 2016 at 17:02, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:17:59AM +0800, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
>> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
>>
>> This patch simplify arch_counter_get_cntvct_mem function by
>> using readq to get 64-bit CNTVCT value instead of readl_relaxed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 10 +---------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> index e6fd42d..483d2f9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> @@ -418,15 +418,7 @@ u32 arch_timer_get_rate(void)
>>
>> static u64 arch_counter_get_cntvct_mem(void)
>> {
>> - u32 vct_lo, vct_hi, tmp_hi;
>> -
>> - do {
>> - vct_hi = readl_relaxed(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_HI);
>> - vct_lo = readl_relaxed(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_LO);
>> - tmp_hi = readl_relaxed(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_HI);
>> - } while (vct_hi != tmp_hi);
>> -
>> - return ((u64) vct_hi << 32) | vct_lo;
>> + return readq(arch_counter_base + CNTVCT_LO);
>
Sorry, right after posting v9, I got your comment,
> What's the benefit of doing this? If you use readq here, how can we
benefit:
1. simplify the code
2. from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h, I guess readq is more efficient
> guarantee that (a) the endpoint won't generate a SLVERR or similar and
> (b) that we get ?
I think so, according to arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h.
readq Implement by "LDR" and "LDAR", So I think It is an atomic read.
Please correct me, If I misunderstand something, thanks
>
> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
>
> Will
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists