| Message ID | 1436429599-10762-3-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding a local function and I would like to hear that reason. > --- > I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of > storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. > > Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() > callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to > atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? The function is used with 32bit register value from the device so I think it is ok. Regards, Arend > --- > Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com> > Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> > Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@broadcom.com> > Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> > Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com> > Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@broadcom.com> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org > Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 13 ++----------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > index d36f5f3d931b..f990e3d0e696 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > @@ -2564,15 +2564,6 @@ static inline void brcmf_sdio_clrintr(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) > } > } > > -static void atomic_orr(int val, atomic_t *v) > -{ > - int old_val; > - > - old_val = atomic_read(v); > - while (atomic_cmpxchg(v, old_val, val | old_val) != old_val) > - old_val = atomic_read(v); > -} > - > static int brcmf_sdio_intr_rstatus(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) > { > struct brcmf_core *buscore; > @@ -2595,7 +2586,7 @@ static int brcmf_sdio_intr_rstatus(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) > if (val) { > brcmf_sdiod_regwl(bus->sdiodev, addr, val, &ret); > bus->sdcnt.f1regdata++; > - atomic_orr(val, &bus->intstatus); > + atomic_or(val, &bus->intstatus); > } > > return ret; > @@ -2712,7 +2703,7 @@ static void brcmf_sdio_dpc(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) > > /* Keep still-pending events for next scheduling */ > if (intstatus) > - atomic_orr(intstatus, &bus->intstatus); > + atomic_or(intstatus, &bus->intstatus); > > brcmf_sdio_clrintr(bus); > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 07/09/2015 08:25 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. > > There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if > it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding a > local function and I would like to hear that reason. Nevermind. Just noticed you are proposing the generic implementation in this series. Currently on vacation and want to discuss with Hante about this change. Regards, Arend >> --- >> I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of >> storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. >> >> Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() >> callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to >> atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? > > The function is used with 32bit register value from the device so I > think it is ok. > > Regards, > Arend > >> --- >> Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com> >> Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> >> Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@broadcom.com> >> Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com> >> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> >> Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com> >> Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@broadcom.com> >> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 13 ++----------- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> index d36f5f3d931b..f990e3d0e696 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> @@ -2564,15 +2564,6 @@ static inline void brcmf_sdio_clrintr(struct >> brcmf_sdio *bus) >> } >> } >> >> -static void atomic_orr(int val, atomic_t *v) >> -{ >> - int old_val; >> - >> - old_val = atomic_read(v); >> - while (atomic_cmpxchg(v, old_val, val | old_val) != old_val) >> - old_val = atomic_read(v); >> -} >> - >> static int brcmf_sdio_intr_rstatus(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) >> { >> struct brcmf_core *buscore; >> @@ -2595,7 +2586,7 @@ static int brcmf_sdio_intr_rstatus(struct >> brcmf_sdio *bus) >> if (val) { >> brcmf_sdiod_regwl(bus->sdiodev, addr, val, &ret); >> bus->sdcnt.f1regdata++; >> - atomic_orr(val, &bus->intstatus); >> + atomic_or(val, &bus->intstatus); >> } >> >> return ret; >> @@ -2712,7 +2703,7 @@ static void brcmf_sdio_dpc(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) >> >> /* Keep still-pending events for next scheduling */ >> if (intstatus) >> - atomic_orr(intstatus, &bus->intstatus); >> + atomic_or(intstatus, &bus->intstatus); >> >> brcmf_sdio_clrintr(bus); >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if > >it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding a > >local function and I would like to hear that reason. > > Nevermind. Just noticed you are proposing the generic implementation in this > series. Currently on vacation and want to discuss with Hante about this > change. No there is one in linux/atomic.h, he just renamed the #ifdef guard and provided a 'sane' implementation for his arch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thursday 09 July 2015 11:55 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. > There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if > it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding a > local function and I would like to hear that reason. > atomic_orr() was introduced to this driver with 2014-03-06 5cbb9c285bdc brcmfmac: Use atomic functions for intstatus update. as it seems atomic_set_mask() was not available cross arch. And atomic_or() in generic code was indeed introduced after that 2014-04-23 560cb12a4080 locking,arch: Rewrite generic atomic support Hence likely the reason author went with home grown atomic_orr() -Vineet -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 07/10/2015 06:49 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On Thursday 09 July 2015 11:55 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>>> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. >> There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if >> it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding a >> local function and I would like to hear that reason. >> > > atomic_orr() was introduced to this driver with > > 2014-03-06 5cbb9c285bdc brcmfmac: Use atomic functions for intstatus update. > > as it seems atomic_set_mask() was not available cross arch. And atomic_or() in > generic code was indeed introduced after that > > 2014-04-23 560cb12a4080 locking,arch: Rewrite generic atomic support > > Hence likely the reason author went with home grown atomic_orr() Hi Vineet Thanks for looking into the timeline. Will look into it and let you know. Regards, Arend > -Vineet > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> writes: > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. > --- > I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of > storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. > > Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() > callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to > atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? > --- > Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com> > Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> > Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@broadcom.com> > Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> > Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com> > Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@broadcom.com> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org > Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it?
On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> writes: > >> > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. >> > --- >> > I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of >> > storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. >> > >> > Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() >> > callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to >> > atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? >> > --- >> > Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com> >> > Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> >> > Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@broadcom.com> >> > Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com> >> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> >> > Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com> >> > Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@broadcom.com> >> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org >> > Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com >> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> > Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org >> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> > What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my > wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it? Per last discussion on this topic, Arend wanted to discuss abt this with Hante. I'm not taking it anyways so feel free to pick it up if you want ! -Vineet -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 07/24/2015 07:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> writes: >> >>>> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. >>>> --- >>>> I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of >>>> storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. >>>> >>>> Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() >>>> callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to >>>> atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? >>>> --- >>>> Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com> >>>> Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> >>>> Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@broadcom.com> >>>> Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com> >>>> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> >>>> Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com> >>>> Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@broadcom.com> >>>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com >>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >>>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >> What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my >> wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it? > > > Per last discussion on this topic, Arend wanted to discuss abt this with Hante. > I'm not taking it anyways so feel free to pick it up if you want ! Well, that was before your "timeline" clarification about the generic function. One what tree is this patch based? Regards, Arend -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> writes: > On 07/24/2015 07:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> writes: >>> >>>>> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. >>>>> --- >>>>> I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of >>>>> storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. >>>>> >>>>> Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() >>>>> callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to >>>>> atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? >>>>> --- >>>>> Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> >>>>> Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com >>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >>>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >>>>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >>> What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my >>> wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it? >> >> >> Per last discussion on this topic, Arend wanted to discuss abt this with Hante. >> I'm not taking it anyways so feel free to pick it up if you want ! > > Well, that was before your "timeline" clarification about the generic > function. One what tree is this patch based? Yeah, if this patch depends on another patch I need to know about it. Otherwise I might break something when I apply this patch.
On Monday 27 July 2015 01:08 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> >> Per last discussion on this topic, Arend wanted to discuss abt this with Hante. >>> >> I'm not taking it anyways so feel free to pick it up if you want ! >> > >> > Well, that was before your "timeline" clarification about the generic >> > function. One what tree is this patch based? > Yeah, if this patch depends on another patch I need to know about it. > Otherwise I might break something when I apply this patch. It was latest linux-next at the time, 4.1-rcx perhaps, don't remember exactly. But it certainly doesn't depend on any new code - the patch simply makes use of an existing API vs. using a local hard coded version of same. Give it a spin off your existing tree - shdn't be too difficult to test I presume. -Vineet -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
Thanks, applied to wireless-drivers-next.git.
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c index d36f5f3d931b..f990e3d0e696 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c @@ -2564,15 +2564,6 @@ static inline void brcmf_sdio_clrintr(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) } } -static void atomic_orr(int val, atomic_t *v) -{ - int old_val; - - old_val = atomic_read(v); - while (atomic_cmpxchg(v, old_val, val | old_val) != old_val) - old_val = atomic_read(v); -} - static int brcmf_sdio_intr_rstatus(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) { struct brcmf_core *buscore; @@ -2595,7 +2586,7 @@ static int brcmf_sdio_intr_rstatus(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) if (val) { brcmf_sdiod_regwl(bus->sdiodev, addr, val, &ret); bus->sdcnt.f1regdata++; - atomic_orr(val, &bus->intstatus); + atomic_or(val, &bus->intstatus); } return ret; @@ -2712,7 +2703,7 @@ static void brcmf_sdio_dpc(struct brcmf_sdio *bus) /* Keep still-pending events for next scheduling */ if (intstatus) - atomic_orr(intstatus, &bus->intstatus); + atomic_or(intstatus, &bus->intstatus); brcmf_sdio_clrintr(bus);