From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: nand: sunxi: fix OOB handling in ->write_xxx() functions
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:49:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3809181.WuS0af6Yyz@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150914114113.4aa7ea03@bbrezillon>
On Monday 14 September 2015 11:41:13 Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:59:02 +0200
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 14 September 2015 10:41:03 Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > /* Fill OOB data in */
> > > - if (oob_required) {
> > > - tmp = 0xffffffff;
> > > - memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE, &tmp,
> > > - 4);
> > > - } else {
> > > - memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE,
> > > - chip->oob_poi + offset - mtd->writesize,
> > > - 4);
> > > - }
> > > + writel(NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA(chip->oob_poi +
> > > + layout->oobfree[i].offset),
> > > + nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE);
> >
> > This looks like you are changing the endianess of the data that gets written.
> > Is that intentional?
>
> Hm, the real goal of this patch was to avoid accessing the
> NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE register using byte accessors (writeb()).
> The first version of this series was directly copying data from the
> buffer into a temporary u32 variable, thus forcing the data to be stored
> in little endian (tell me if I'm wrong), and then changing endianness
> using le32_to_cpu().
> Brian suggested to use __raw_writel() (as you seem to suggest too), but
> I was worried about the missing mem barrier in this function.
> That's why I made my own macro doing the little endian to CPU conversion
> manually, but still using the standard writel() accessor (which will
> do the conversion in reverse order).
D'oh, I totally missed your open-coded le32_to_cpu macro.
So your code does look correct to me, it's just a little inefficient
on big-endian machines because you end up swapping twice.
> Maybe I should use __raw_writel() and add an explicit memory barrier.
That would work, and avoid the double swapping, yes. Or you could
use writesl() with a length of one, which should have all the
necessary barriers but no byteswap.
I don't think you need a barrier on ARM here (no DMA that can interfere),
but it's better write the code architecture independent (as you did
above).
The memcpy_toio() is definitely overkill as it has a barrier after every
single byte, where you need at most one for this kind of driver.
> > memcpy_toio() uses the same endianess for source and destination, while writel()
> > assumes that the destination is a little-endian register, and that could break
> > if the kernel is built to run as big-endian. I also see that sunxi_nfc_write_buf()
> > uses memcpy_toio() for writing the actual data, and you are not changing that.
>
> AFAIU the peripheral is always in little endian, and only the CPU can
> be switched to big endian, right?
Correct.
> Are you saying that memcpy_toio() uses writel? Because according to
> this implementation [2] it uses writeb, which should be safe (accessing
> the internal SRAM using byte accessors is authorized).
No, what I meant is that you are replacing some memcpy_toio() with
writel(), but don't replace some of the others that should/could also
be replaced.
As mentioned, I was under the impression that you changed the endianess
for the OOB data but did not change the endianess for the user data,
which would be inconsistent.
> > If all hardware can do 32-bit accesses here and the size is guaranteed to be a
> > multiple of four bytes, you can probably improve performance by using a
> > __raw_writel() loop there. Using __raw_writel() in general is almost always
> > a bug, but here it actually makes sense. See also the powerpc implementation
> > of _memcpy_toio().
>
> AFAICT, buffer passed to ->write_bu() are not necessarily aligned on
> 32bits, so using writel here might require copying data in temporary
> buffers :-/.
>
> Don't hesitate to point where I'm wrong ;-).
Brian or Dwmw2 should be able to know for sure. I think it's definitely
worth trying as the potential performance gains could be huge, if you
replace
for (p = start; p < start + length; data++, p++) {
writeb(*data, p);
wmb();
}
with
for (p = start; p < start + length; data++, p+=4) {
writel(*data, p);
};
wmb();
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4] mtd: nand: sunxi: fix OOB handling in ->write_xxx() functions
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:49:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3809181.WuS0af6Yyz@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150914114113.4aa7ea03@bbrezillon>
On Monday 14 September 2015 11:41:13 Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:59:02 +0200
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 14 September 2015 10:41:03 Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > /* Fill OOB data in */
> > > - if (oob_required) {
> > > - tmp = 0xffffffff;
> > > - memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE, &tmp,
> > > - 4);
> > > - } else {
> > > - memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE,
> > > - chip->oob_poi + offset - mtd->writesize,
> > > - 4);
> > > - }
> > > + writel(NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA(chip->oob_poi +
> > > + layout->oobfree[i].offset),
> > > + nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE);
> >
> > This looks like you are changing the endianess of the data that gets written.
> > Is that intentional?
>
> Hm, the real goal of this patch was to avoid accessing the
> NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE register using byte accessors (writeb()).
> The first version of this series was directly copying data from the
> buffer into a temporary u32 variable, thus forcing the data to be stored
> in little endian (tell me if I'm wrong), and then changing endianness
> using le32_to_cpu().
> Brian suggested to use __raw_writel() (as you seem to suggest too), but
> I was worried about the missing mem barrier in this function.
> That's why I made my own macro doing the little endian to CPU conversion
> manually, but still using the standard writel() accessor (which will
> do the conversion in reverse order).
D'oh, I totally missed your open-coded le32_to_cpu macro.
So your code does look correct to me, it's just a little inefficient
on big-endian machines because you end up swapping twice.
> Maybe I should use __raw_writel() and add an explicit memory barrier.
That would work, and avoid the double swapping, yes. Or you could
use writesl() with a length of one, which should have all the
necessary barriers but no byteswap.
I don't think you need a barrier on ARM here (no DMA that can interfere),
but it's better write the code architecture independent (as you did
above).
The memcpy_toio() is definitely overkill as it has a barrier after every
single byte, where you need at most one for this kind of driver.
> > memcpy_toio() uses the same endianess for source and destination, while writel()
> > assumes that the destination is a little-endian register, and that could break
> > if the kernel is built to run as big-endian. I also see that sunxi_nfc_write_buf()
> > uses memcpy_toio() for writing the actual data, and you are not changing that.
>
> AFAIU the peripheral is always in little endian, and only the CPU can
> be switched to big endian, right?
Correct.
> Are you saying that memcpy_toio() uses writel? Because according to
> this implementation [2] it uses writeb, which should be safe (accessing
> the internal SRAM using byte accessors is authorized).
No, what I meant is that you are replacing some memcpy_toio() with
writel(), but don't replace some of the others that should/could also
be replaced.
As mentioned, I was under the impression that you changed the endianess
for the OOB data but did not change the endianess for the user data,
which would be inconsistent.
> > If all hardware can do 32-bit accesses here and the size is guaranteed to be a
> > multiple of four bytes, you can probably improve performance by using a
> > __raw_writel() loop there. Using __raw_writel() in general is almost always
> > a bug, but here it actually makes sense. See also the powerpc implementation
> > of _memcpy_toio().
>
> AFAICT, buffer passed to ->write_bu() are not necessarily aligned on
> 32bits, so using writel here might require copying data in temporary
> buffers :-/.
>
> Don't hesitate to point where I'm wrong ;-).
Brian or Dwmw2 should be able to know for sure. I think it's definitely
worth trying as the potential performance gains could be huge, if you
replace
for (p = start; p < start + length; data++, p++) {
writeb(*data, p);
wmb();
}
with
for (p = start; p < start + length; data++, p+=4) {
writel(*data, p);
};
wmb();
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-14 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-14 8:41 [PATCH v4] mtd: nand: sunxi: fix OOB handling in ->write_xxx() functions Boris Brezillon
2015-09-14 8:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-09-14 8:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-09-14 8:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-09-14 9:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-09-14 9:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-09-14 11:49 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2015-09-14 11:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-09-14 12:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-09-14 12:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-09-14 17:02 ` Brian Norris
2015-09-14 17:02 ` Brian Norris
2015-09-21 20:43 ` Brian Norris
2015-09-21 20:43 ` Brian Norris
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3809181.WuS0af6Yyz@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com \
--cc=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.