netdev - Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH v3] add the driver for Analog Devices Blackfin on-chip CAN controllers

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: <4B20D954.8040002@grandegger.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:19:48 +0100
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	"Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>
CC:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
	socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, "H.J. Oertel" <oe@...t.de>,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH v3] add the driver for Analog Devices
 Blackfin on-chip CAN controllers

Hennerich, Michael wrote:
> 
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:11, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>> Barry Song wrote:
>>>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>>>> I think you don't need "types.h" as the code no longer uses
>> "uint*_t".
>>>> linux/types.h declares all types, like u* which this driver still
>> uses
>>> I just remember that "linux/types.h" needs to be added for the
> uint*_t
>>> types. At a first glance I do not see __u8/u8 being defined in that
>>> header file but I might have missed something.
>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm still not a friend of the following inline functions,
>>>>> especially the *one-liners* which are called just *once*. With the
>> usage
>>>>> of structs they seem even more useless.
>>>> seems like it would make more sense to not even use the read/write
>>>> functions either.  just declare the regs as volatile and assign/read
>>>> the struct directly.
>>> Two times no. Don't use volatile and proper accessor functions. See:
>>>
>>> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.32/Documentation/volatile-considered-
>> harmful.txt
>>
>> I was just wondering if bfin_read/write16 would not be the proper
>> accessor functions. readw/writew seems to be implemented differently:
>>
>> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.32/arch/blackfin/include/asm/io.h#L44
>>
>> Puh, they do an cli,nop,nop,sync..sti for the access. This also nicely
>> shows why accessor functions should be used to access device registers.
>>
>> Well, just curious. I don't really know the blackfin arch.
> 
> Well - on Blackfin its absolutely ok to access System Memory Mapped
> Registers using structs.
> At any rate volatile is then required to prevent the compiler to
> optimize accesses away.
> IMHO this is a pretty legal use of volatile, and used in hundreds of
> places all over the kernel. 
>  
> When accessing external controllers accessor functions from io.h must be
> used.
> There are two things to consider here:
> 1) weak ordering of reads and writes 
> 2) killed and reissued reads (especially harmful when reading from
> FIFOs)

OK, anyway, I believe that it's good practice to hide all such details
by using proper accessor functions.

Wolfgang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html