lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/12] hwrng: bcm2835-rng: Abstract I/O accessors
From
Date
On 11/03/2017 01:19 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In preparation for allowing BCM63xx to use this driver, we abstract I/O
>> accessors such that we can easily change those later on.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/char/hw_random/bcm2835-rng.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/bcm2835-rng.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/bcm2835-rng.c
>> index 35928efb52e7..500275d55044 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/bcm2835-rng.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/bcm2835-rng.c
>> @@ -42,6 +42,17 @@ static inline struct bcm2835_rng_priv *to_rng_priv(struct hwrng *rng)
>> return container_of(rng, struct bcm2835_rng_priv, rng);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline u32 rng_readl(struct bcm2835_rng_priv *priv, u32 offset)
>> +{
>> + return readl(priv->base + offset);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void rng_writel(struct bcm2835_rng_priv *priv, u32 val,
>> + u32 offset)
>> +{
>> + writel(val, priv->base + offset);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int bcm2835_rng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max,
>> bool wait)
>> {
>> @@ -49,18 +60,18 @@ static int bcm2835_rng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max,
>> u32 max_words = max / sizeof(u32);
>> u32 num_words, count;
>>
>> - while ((__raw_readl(priv->base + RNG_STATUS) >> 24) == 0) {
>> + while ((rng_readl(priv, RNG_STATUS) >> 24) == 0) {
>> if (!wait)
>> return 0;
>> cpu_relax();
>> }
>
> What was the difference between the __raw_readl and readl that's now
> being done in the new call? Is it important?

readl() on ARM contains a memory barrier, which has therefore stronger
ordering guarantees than __raw_readl() which does not.

In practice I don't think this makes a whole lot of difference in that
the above loop does not even have a barrier outside of it to try to have
any sort of ordering guarantee so it seems to me like this may be an
oversight.

I took the liberty to use the stronger operation here because it seems
to me like this is what is desired, or at least won't cause functional
problems, and because I am not intimately familiar with the 2835 busing
architecture. I know for a thing that the Broadcom STB and DSL busses
(named GISB and UBUS respectively) do not require such barriers since
they do not re-order transactions and are non-posted.

>
>> /* set warm-up count & enable */
>> - __raw_writel(RNG_WARMUP_COUNT, priv->base + RNG_STATUS);
>> - __raw_writel(RNG_RBGEN, priv->base + RNG_CTRL);
>> + rng_writel(priv, RNG_WARMUP_COUNT, RNG_STATUS);
>> + rng_writel(priv, RNG_RBGEN, RNG_CTRL);
>
> Similar question.

And here we definitively are not in a hot-path so the more "ordered"
variant is acceptable it seems.
--
Florian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-03 23:04    [W:0.064 / U:2.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site