Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: host: ohci-exynos: Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_ioremap
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 06:32:42PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Thierry Reding
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 03:41:20PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Vivek Gautam
>> >> wrote:
> [...]
>> >> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> >> > b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> >> > index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
>> >> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> >> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> >> > @@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
>> >> >
>> >> > hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
>> >> > hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
>> >> > - hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
>> >> > - if (!hcd->regs) {
>> >> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
>> >> > - err = -ENOMEM;
>> >> > + hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>> >>
>> >> Here, we replaced devm_ioremap() call with devm_ioremap_resource(),
>> >> which internally requests the memory region
>> >
>> > I guess this could lead to problems if drivers haven't been written to
>> > cleanly split the register ranges that they access, since now two
>> > overlapping regions may be requested and cause the drivers to fail.
>>
>> Sorry i did not understand completely. Wouldn't the request_mem_region()
>> fail for an already busy resource ?
>> So devm_ioremap_resource() will in fact prevent the drivers from requesting
>> the same memory region twice until the first request frees the region.
>> Isn't it ?
>
> Yes exactly. What I was trying to say is that since drivers weren't
> requesting the resources before they may be using overlapping regions.
> Now that this patch changes these drivers to also request the resources
> they will fail if the regions overlap with those of other drivers.
Thanks for explaining it further.
I understand this fact. And i am sure this case does not arise in exynos.
For Tegra, Stephen noted this fact about the ehci driver and the
corresponding PHY.
So that the PHY does a devm_ioremap() only.
For other platforms too we did not get any concerns raised, so we
moved ahead with the series
for merging.
>
>> >> and then does a "devm_ioremap()" or "devm_ioremap_nocache()" based on
>> >> the check for IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE flag.
>> >>
>> >> But this flag is not set for the resource of this device.
>> >> So should we be explicitly setting the flag in driver ?
>> >
>> > I don't think it makes much sense to map these registers cached anyway.
>> > Drivers will likely expect writes to this region to take effect without
>> > needing any kind of flushing.
>>
>> These "hcd->regs" are going to be used by the controller, so wouldn't
>> there be a performance difference when the requested address space is
>> cacheable/non-cacheable ?
>
> The issue here is that if the region is mapped cacheable then register
> writes may not immediately take effect and that's almost certainly not
> what the driver will expect. I don't think it ever makes sense to map
> registers cacheable.
Ok, this explains things.
--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: host: ohci-exynos: Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_ioremap
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 06:32:42PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 03:41:20PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Vivek Gautam
> >> wrote:
[...]
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> >> > b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> >> > index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> >> > @@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
> >> >
> >> > hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
> >> > hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
> >> > - hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
> >> > - if (!hcd->regs) {
> >> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
> >> > - err = -ENOMEM;
> >> > + hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> >>
> >> Here, we replaced devm_ioremap() call with devm_ioremap_resource(),
> >> which internally requests the memory region
> >
> > I guess this could lead to problems if drivers haven't been written to
> > cleanly split the register ranges that they access, since now two
> > overlapping regions may be requested and cause the drivers to fail.
>
> Sorry i did not understand completely. Wouldn't the request_mem_region()
> fail for an already busy resource ?
> So devm_ioremap_resource() will in fact prevent the drivers from requesting
> the same memory region twice until the first request frees the region.
> Isn't it ?
Yes exactly. What I was trying to say is that since drivers weren't
requesting the resources before they may be using overlapping regions.
Now that this patch changes these drivers to also request the resources
they will fail if the regions overlap with those of other drivers.
> >> and then does a "devm_ioremap()" or "devm_ioremap_nocache()" based on
> >> the check for IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE flag.
> >>
> >> But this flag is not set for the resource of this device.
> >> So should we be explicitly setting the flag in driver ?
> >
> > I don't think it makes much sense to map these registers cached anyway.
> > Drivers will likely expect writes to this region to take effect without
> > needing any kind of flushing.
>
> These "hcd->regs" are going to be used by the controller, so wouldn't
> there be a performance difference when the requested address space is
> cacheable/non-cacheable ?
The issue here is that if the region is mapped cacheable then register
writes may not immediately take effect and that's almost certainly not
what the driver will expect. I don't think it ever makes sense to map
registers cacheable.
Thierry
pgpHFeETloL88.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: host: ohci-exynos: Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_ioremap
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 03:41:20PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Vivek Gautam
>> wrote:
>> > Using devm_ioremap_resource() API should actually be preferred over
>> > devm_ioremap(), since the former request the mem region first and then
>> > gives back the ioremap'ed memory pointer.
>> > devm_ioremap_resource() calls request_mem_region(), therby preventing
>> > other drivers to make any overlapping call to the same region.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam
>>
>> Although this patch and rest in the series are merged.
>> But i have got a doubt, so making this thread alive.
>>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |7 +++
>> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> > b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> > index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
>> > @@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
>> >
>> > hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
>> > hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
>> > - hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
>> > - if (!hcd->regs) {
>> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
>> > - err = -ENOMEM;
>> > + hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>>
>> Here, we replaced devm_ioremap() call with devm_ioremap_resource(),
>> which internally requests the memory region
>
> I guess this could lead to problems if drivers haven't been written to
> cleanly split the register ranges that they access, since now two
> overlapping regions may be requested and cause the drivers to fail.
Sorry i did not understand completely. Wouldn't the request_mem_region()
fail for an already busy resource ?
So devm_ioremap_resource() will in fact prevent the drivers from requesting
the same memory region twice until the first request frees the region.
Isn't it ?
>
>> and then does a "devm_ioremap()" or "devm_ioremap_nocache()" based on
>> the check for IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE flag.
>>
>> But this flag is not set for the resource of this device.
>> So should we be explicitly setting the flag in driver ?
>
> I don't think it makes much sense to map these registers cached anyway.
> Drivers will likely expect writes to this region to take effect without
> needing any kind of flushing.
These "hcd->regs" are going to be used by the controller, so wouldn't there be a
a performance difference when the requested address space is
cacheable/non-cacheable ?
--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: host: ohci-exynos: Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_ioremap
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 03:41:20PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Vivek Gautam
> wrote:
> > Using devm_ioremap_resource() API should actually be preferred over
> > devm_ioremap(), since the former request the mem region first and then
> > gives back the ioremap'ed memory pointer.
> > devm_ioremap_resource() calls request_mem_region(), therby preventing
> > other drivers to make any overlapping call to the same region.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam
>
> Although this patch and rest in the series are merged.
> But i have got a doubt, so making this thread alive.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |7 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> > index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> > @@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
> >
> > hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
> > hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
> > - hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
> > - if (!hcd->regs) {
> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
> > - err = -ENOMEM;
> > + hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>
> Here, we replaced devm_ioremap() call with devm_ioremap_resource(),
> which internally requests the memory region
I guess this could lead to problems if drivers haven't been written to
cleanly split the register ranges that they access, since now two
overlapping regions may be requested and cause the drivers to fail.
> and then does a "devm_ioremap()" or "devm_ioremap_nocache()" based on
> the check for IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE flag.
>
> But this flag is not set for the resource of this device.
> So should we be explicitly setting the flag in driver ?
I don't think it makes much sense to map these registers cached anyway.
Drivers will likely expect writes to this region to take effect without
needing any kind of flushing.
Thierry
pgpsFrtvOozPs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: host: ohci-exynos: Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_ioremap
Hi,
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Using devm_ioremap_resource() API should actually be preferred over
> devm_ioremap(), since the former request the mem region first and then
> gives back the ioremap'ed memory pointer.
> devm_ioremap_resource() calls request_mem_region(), therby preventing
> other drivers to make any overlapping call to the same region.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam
Although this patch and rest in the series are merged.
But i have got a doubt, so making this thread alive.
> ---
> drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |7 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
> @@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
>
> hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
> hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
> - hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
> - if (!hcd->regs) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
> - err = -ENOMEM;
> + hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
Here, we replaced devm_ioremap() call with devm_ioremap_resource(),
which internally
requests the memory region and then does a "devm_ioremap()" or
"devm_ioremap_nocache()"
based on the check for IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE flag.
But this flag is not set for the resource of this device.
So should we be explicitly setting the flag in driver ?
The query goes for other patches too in this series, wherein
devm_ioremap() call is replaced with devm_ioremap_resource().
[snip]
--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH v2 6/6] usb: host: ohci-exynos: Use devm_ioremap_resource instead of devm_ioremap
Using devm_ioremap_resource() API should actually be preferred over
devm_ioremap(), since the former request the mem region first and then
gives back the ioremap'ed memory pointer.
devm_ioremap_resource() calls request_mem_region(), therby preventing
other drivers to make any overlapping call to the same region.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam
---
drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c |7 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
index 9cf80cb..dec691d 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-exynos.c
@@ -120,10 +120,9 @@ skip_phy:
hcd->rsrc_start = res->start;
hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(res);
- hcd->regs = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, hcd->rsrc_len);
- if (!hcd->regs) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to remap I/O memory\n");
- err = -ENOMEM;
+ hcd->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
+ if (IS_ERR(hcd->regs)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(hcd->regs);
goto fail_io;
}
--
1.7.10.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
