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: <4B22082A.3050404@grandegger.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:51:54 +0100
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
CC:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>, oe@...t.de,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH v3] add the driver for Analog Devices
 Blackfin on-chip CAN controllers

Barry Song wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 21:05, Barry Song wrote:
>>> 2009/12/11 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>:
>>>> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 05:48, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:11, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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. �,A 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.
>>>>> the common I/O functions need to account for issues surrounding the
>>>>> bus that has arbitrary devices memory mapped to it.  on-chip devices
>>>>> (like what we're talking about here) do not have these issues and so
>>>>> using the common functions is awful overhead.
>>>> Then create special accessors (perhaps with the same names as the
>>>> existing ones, but with "__" prepended) that lack all of the
>>>> interrupt disabling, syncs, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Really it _is_ cleaner and makes your driver look a lot nicer.
>>> I think Mike has said the functions are bfin_read/bfin_write in
>>> blackfin arch since those CAN registers are located in memory mapped
>>> area but not async memory and have less overhead than common io
>>> functions? Is it acceptable to use those functions in this driver?
>> yes, bfin_{read,write} should be used
> 
> Wolfgang/David, are you ok with that too? If so, I will send a -v4
> patch using bfin_read/write, with all fix according to your other
> comments.

I understood from Mike that these are the proper functions to be used
for accessing on-chip registers.

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