On 12/03/2016 02:34 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com>
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:34:26 -0600
>
>> @@ -167,10 +167,10 @@ static struct cpdma_control_info controls[] = {
>>
>> /* various accessors */
>> #define dma_reg_read(ctlr, ofs) __raw_readl((ctlr)->dmaregs +
>> (ofs))
>> -#define chan_read(chan, fld) __raw_readl((chan)->fld)
>> +#define chan_read(chan, fld) readl((chan)->fld)
>> #define desc_read(desc, fld) __raw_readl(&(desc)->fld)
>> #define dma_reg_write(ctlr, ofs, v) __raw_writel(v, (ctlr)->dmaregs + (ofs))
>> -#define chan_write(chan, fld, v) __raw_writel(v, (chan)->fld)
>> +#define chan_write(chan, fld, v) writel(v, (chan)->fld)
>> #define desc_write(desc, fld, v) __raw_writel((u32)(v), &(desc)->fld)
>
> Unless you want to keep running into subtle errors all over the
> place wrt. register vs. memory write ordering, I strong suggest
> you use strongly ordered readl/writel for all register accesses.
>
> I see no tangible, worthwhile, advantage to using these relaxed
> ordering primitives. The only result is potential bugs.
>
> People who use the relaxed ordering primitives properly are only
> doing so in extremely carefully coded sequences where a series
> of writes has no dependency on main memory operations and is
> explicitly completed with a barrier operation such as a read
> back of a register in the same device.
>
> That's not at all what is going on here, instead the driver is wildly
> using relaxed ordered register accesses for basically everything.
> This is extremely unwise and it's why you ran into this bug in the
> first place.
>
> Therefore, I absolutely require that you fix this by eliminating
> any and all usese of relaxed ordering I/O accessors in this driver.
Thanks for your comments - that's what I've tried first, but that decided
to find out minimal change which still works.
I'll update it.
--
regards,
-grygorii
