From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@marvell.com>,
Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] lib: Introduce atomic MMIO modify
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:33:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130828123352.b9beff5237dfde2571a5779e@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130828102422.GA2348@localhost>
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:24:23 -0300 Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 12:35:29 -0300 Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Some platforms have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> > > subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
> > > thread-safe access of such regions through a spinlock-protected API.
> >
> > Seem sensible. Perhaps.
> >
> > It only works if both subsystems agree to use atomic_io_modify(). And
> > if they're both capable of doing that, they are both capable of
> > implementing an agreed-upon internal locking scheme, so why bother?
> >
>
> One of the scenarios where this could be helpful and an agreed-upon
> lock seemed difficult to design is this: a watchdog driver that shares
> some control register with *two* different clocksource drivers.
>
> So, one first solution is to have a function in the two clocksource
> drivers (with matching prototype) and have the watchdog access
> the register through it.
>
> However, because of multiplatform builds, both these clocksource drivers
> could be built at the same time. Therefore we would have a symbol
> collision, doubly-defined, in each driver.
>
> How would that work? What other internal locking scheme could we
> implement?
I guess the locking would need to be in a standalone module which the
various driver modules would then depend upon. I'm not really
advocating doing this - I'm just making noise.
> [..]
> >
> > I disagree with the presence of the ifndef. If
> > __HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_IO_MODIFY is undefined, the architecture must still
> > implement the identical function signature. The best way to ensure that
> > is to use the same prototype in both cases.
> >
>
> I agree, but how can this be done?
Just remove the ifndefs. Then remove the identical function prototype
from the arm header.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-28 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-24 15:35 [PATCH v4 0/4] " Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-24 15:35 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] lib: " Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-24 18:27 ` richard -rw- weinberger
2013-08-24 19:58 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-24 20:35 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-08-24 20:49 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-24 20:53 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-08-24 23:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-27 14:37 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-27 20:37 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-28 10:24 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-28 19:33 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2013-08-29 8:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 10:37 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-28 16:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-24 15:35 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] ARM: Add atomic_io_modify optimized routines Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-28 8:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-08-28 9:49 ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-28 10:01 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 11:39 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-08-24 15:35 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] clocksource: orion: Use atomic access for shared registers Ezequiel Garcia
2013-08-24 15:35 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] watchdog: " Ezequiel Garcia
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=20130828123352.b9beff5237dfde2571a5779e@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alior@marvell.com \
--cc=baruch@tkos.co.il \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com \
--cc=gregory.clement@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome