On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 12:07 PM Robin Murphy [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2021-02-26 14:03, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:

quoted

index d2a2d1bc58ba..997d13a21717 100644

--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h

@@ -477,15 +477,20 @@ static inline void arm_smmu_writel(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int page,
  {
      if (smmu->impl && unlikely(smmu->impl->write_reg))
              smmu->impl->write_reg(smmu, page, offset, val);
-     else
+     else if (dev_64bit_mmio_supported(smmu->dev))
              writel_relaxed(val, arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset);
+     else
+             hi_lo_writeq_relaxed(val, arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset);

As Arnd pointed out, this is in completely the wrong place. Also, in
general it doesn't work if the implementation already needs a hook to
filter or override register accesses for any other reason. TBH I'm not
convinced that this isn't *more* of a mess than handling it on a
SoC-specific basis...

I think the main problem for handling it in a SoC specific way is that there is
no device-independent way to do a 64-bit store as two 32-bit stores:

- some devices need hi_lo_writeq_relaxed(), others need lo_hi_writeq_relaxed(),
  and some absolutely require 64-bit stores and cannot work at all behind a
  broken PCI bus.

- if the driver requires the store to be atomic, it needs to use a spinlock
  around the two writel(), but if the register is on a PCI bus or mapped
  with page attributes that allow posted writes (like arm64 ioremap), then
  you may need to read back the register before spin_unlock to serialize
  them properly. However, reading back an mmio register is slow and can
  have side-effects, so you can't put that in driver-independent code either.

        Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel