Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: About commit "io: change inX() to have their own IO barrier
 overrides"
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>
References: <2e80d7bc-32a0-cc40-00a9-8a383a1966c2@huawei.com>
 <c1489f55-369d-2cff-ff36-b10fb5d3ee79@kernel.org>
 <8207cd51-5b94-2f15-de9f-d85c9c385bca@huawei.com>
From:   Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>
Autocrypt: addr=okaya@kernel.org; keydata=
 mQENBFrnOrUBCADGOL0kF21B6ogpOkuYvz6bUjO7NU99PKhXx1MfK/AzK+SFgxJF7dMluoF6
 uT47bU7zb7HqACH6itTgSSiJeSoq86jYoq5s4JOyaj0/18Hf3/YBah7AOuwk6LtV3EftQIhw
 9vXqCnBwP/nID6PQ685zl3vH68yzF6FVNwbDagxUz/gMiQh7scHvVCjiqkJ+qu/36JgtTYYw
 8lGWRcto6gr0eTF8Wd8f81wspmUHGsFdN/xPsZPKMw6/on9oOj3AidcR3P9EdLY4qQyjvcNC
 V9cL9b5I/Ud9ghPwW4QkM7uhYqQDyh3SwgEFudc+/RsDuxjVlg9CFnGhS0nPXR89SaQZABEB
 AAG0HVNpbmFuIEtheWEgPG9rYXlhQGtlcm5lbC5vcmc+iQFOBBMBCAA4FiEEYdOlMSE+a7/c
 ckrQvGF4I+4LAFcFAlztcAoCGwMFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQvGF4I+4L
 AFfidAf/VKHInxep0Z96iYkIq42432HTZUrxNzG9IWk4HN7c3vTJKv2W+b9pgvBF1SmkyQSy
 8SJ3Zd98CO6FOHA1FigFyZahVsme+T0GsS3/OF1kjrtMktoREr8t0rK0yKpCTYVdlkHadxmR
 Qs5xLzW1RqKlrNigKHI2yhgpMwrpzS+67F1biT41227sqFzW9urEl/jqGJXaB6GV+SRKSHN+
 ubWXgE1NkmfAMeyJPKojNT7ReL6eh3BNB/Xh1vQJew+AE50EP7o36UXghoUktnx6cTkge0ZS
 qgxuhN33cCOU36pWQhPqVSlLTZQJVxuCmlaHbYWvye7bBOhmiuNKhOzb3FcgT7kBDQRa5zq1
 AQgAyRq/7JZKOyB8wRx6fHE0nb31P75kCnL3oE+smKW/sOcIQDV3C7mZKLf472MWB1xdr4Tm
 eXeL/wT0QHapLn5M5wWghC80YvjjdolHnlq9QlYVtvl1ocAC28y43tKJfklhHiwMNDJfdZbw
 9lQ2h+7nccFWASNUu9cqZOABLvJcgLnfdDpnSzOye09VVlKr3NHgRyRZa7me/oFJCxrJlKAl
 2hllRLt0yV08o7i14+qmvxI2EKLX9zJfJ2rGWLTVe3EJBnCsQPDzAUVYSnTtqELu2AGzvDiM
 gatRaosnzhvvEK+kCuXuCuZlRWP7pWSHqFFuYq596RRG5hNGLbmVFZrCxQARAQABiQEfBBgB
 CAAJBQJa5zq1AhsMAAoJELxheCPuCwBX2UYH/2kkMC4mImvoClrmcMsNGijcZHdDlz8NFfCI
 gSb3NHkarnA7uAg8KJuaHUwBMk3kBhv2BGPLcmAknzBIehbZ284W7u3DT9o1Y5g+LDyx8RIi
 e7pnMcC+bE2IJExCVf2p3PB1tDBBdLEYJoyFz/XpdDjZ8aVls/pIyrq+mqo5LuuhWfZzPPec
 9EiM2eXpJw+Rz+vKjSt1YIhg46YbdZrDM2FGrt9ve3YaM5H0lzJgq/JQPKFdbd5MB0X37Qc+
 2m/A9u9SFnOovA42DgXUyC2cSbIJdPWOK9PnzfXqF3sX9Aol2eLUmQuLpThJtq5EHu6FzJ7Y
 L+s0nPaNMKwv/Xhhm6Y=
Message-ID: <6115fa56-a471-1e9f-edbb-e643fa4e7e11@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:44:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8207cd51-5b94-2f15-de9f-d85c9c385bca@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/2/2020 7:35 AM, John Garry wrote:
> Hi Sinan,
> 
> Thanks for getting back to me.
> 
>> On 2/28/2020 4:52 AM, John Garry wrote:
>>> About the commit in the $subject 87fe2d543f81, would there be any
>>> specific reason why the logic pio versions of these functions did not
>>> get the same treatment 
> 
> In fact, your changes and the logic PIO changes went in at the same time.
> 
> or should not? I'm talking about lib/logic_pio.c

I think your change missed "cross-architecture" category.

> 
> #define BUILD_LOGIC_IO(bw, type)                   
> type logic_in##bw(unsigned long addr)                   
> {                                   
>     type ret = (type)~0;                       
>     if (addr < MMIO_UPPER_LIMIT) {                   
>         ret = read##bw(PCI_IOBASE + addr); ***   
>     } else if (addr >= MMIO_UPPER_LIMIT && addr < IO_SPACE_LIMIT) {
>         struct logic_pio_hwaddr *entry = find_io_range(addr);   
>                                    
>         if (entry)                       
>             ret = entry->ops->in(entry->hostdata,       
>                     addr, sizeof(type));       
>         else                           
>             WARN_ON_ONCE(1);               
>     }                               
>     return ret;                           
> }       
> 
>> How is the behavior on different architectures?
> 
> So today only ARM64 uses it for this relevant code, above. But maybe
> others in future will want to use it - any arch without native IO port
> access is a candidate.

I'm looking at Arnd here for help.

> 
>>
>> As long as the expectations are set, I see no reason why it shouldn't
>> but, I'll let Arnd comment on it too.
> 
> ok, so it looks reasonable consider replicating your change for ***, above.

Arnd is the maintainer here. We should consult first.
I believe there is also a linux-arch mailing list. Going there with this
question makes sense IMO.


> 
> Thanks,
> John