[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1571104296.19130.67.camel@mhfsdcap03>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:51:36 +0800
From: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...gle.com>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
<srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <youlin.pei@...iatek.com>,
Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
<anan.sun@...iatek.com>, <cui.zhang@...iatek.com>,
<chao.hao@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommu/mediatek: Use writel for TLB range
invalidation
On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 22:11 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:23:47PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 17:29 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:19:02PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> > > > Use writel for the register F_MMU_INV_RANGE which is for triggering the
> > > > HW work. We expect all the setting(iova_start/iova_end...) have already
> > > > been finished before F_MMU_INV_RANGE.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Anan.Sun <anan.sun@...iatek.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > This is a improvement rather than fixing a issue.
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 3 +--
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > > index 24a13a6..607f92c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > > @@ -187,8 +187,7 @@ static void mtk_iommu_tlb_add_flush(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
> > > > writel_relaxed(iova, data->base + REG_MMU_INVLD_START_A);
> > > > writel_relaxed(iova + size - 1,
> > > > data->base + REG_MMU_INVLD_END_A);
> > > > - writel_relaxed(F_MMU_INV_RANGE,
> > > > - data->base + REG_MMU_INVALIDATE);
> > > > + writel(F_MMU_INV_RANGE, data->base + REG_MMU_INVALIDATE);
> > >
> > > I don't understand this change.
> > >
> > > Why is it an "improvement" and which accesses are you ordering with the
> > > writel?
> >
> > The register(F_MMU_INV_RANGE) will trigger HW to begin flush range. HW
> > expect the other register iova_start/end/flush_type always is ready
> > before trigger. thus I'd like use writel to guarantee the previous
> > register has been finished.
>
> Given that these are all MMIO writes to the same device, then
> writel_relaxed() should give you the ordering you need. If you look at
> memory_barriers.txt, it says:
>
> | they [readX_relaxed() and writeX_relaxed()] are still guaranteed to
> | be ordered with respect to other accesses from the same CPU thread
> | to the same peripheral when operating on __iomem pointers mapped
> | with the default I/O attributes.
Thanks for this info. See it now. then I will delete this patch in next
version.
>
> > I didn't see the writel_relaxed cause some error in practice, we only
> > think writel is necessary here in theory. so call it "improvement".
>
> Ok, but I don't think it's needed in this case.
>
> Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists