[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14a040b6-8187-3fbc-754d-2e267d587858@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 13:08:25 -0500
From: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
syadagir@...eaurora.org, mjavid@...eaurora.org,
evgreen@...omium.org, benchan@...gle.com, ejcaruso@...gle.com,
abhishek.esse@...il.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/18] soc: qcom: ipa: GSI transactions
On 5/15/19 2:34 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> +static void gsi_trans_tre_fill(struct gsi_tre *dest_tre, dma_addr_t addr,
>> + u32 len, bool last_tre, bool bei,
>> + enum ipa_cmd_opcode opcode)
>> +{
>> + struct gsi_tre tre;
>> +
>> + tre.addr = cpu_to_le64(addr);
>> + tre.len_opcode = gsi_tre_len_opcode(opcode, len);
>> + tre.reserved = 0;
>> + tre.flags = gsi_tre_flags(last_tre, bei, opcode);
>> +
>> + *dest_tre = tre; /* Write TRE as a single (16-byte) unit */
>> +}
> Have you checked that the atomic write is actually what happens here,
> but looking at the compiler output? You might need to add a 'volatile'
> qualifier to the dest_tre argument so the temporary structure doesn't
> get optimized away here.
Currently, the assignment *does* become a "stp" instruction.
But I don't know that we can *force* the compiler to write it
as a pair of registers, so I'll soften the comment with
"Attempt to write" or something similar.
To my knowledge, adding a volatile qualifier only prevents the
compiler from performing funny optimizations, but that has no
effect on whether the 128-bit assignment is made as a single
unit. Do you know otherwise?
-Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists