lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/6] dma/imx-sdma: check whether event_id0 < 32 when set event_mask
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:53:38PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:35:57PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:37:08PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Richard Zhao
> > > <richard.zhao@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:53:23AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:38:39PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:29:42PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:20:10PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 03:01:50PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@linaro.org>
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I think it deserves a sensible commit message explaining why the patch
> > > >> > > > is needed.
> > > >> > > If event_id0 < 32, 1 << (sdmac->event_id0 - 32) is not zero.
> > > >> This meant to make you clear about the patch. I'll add it in commit
> > > >> message.
> > > > unsigned int t = 31;
> > > > printf("%d %08x\n", t, 1 << (t-32));
> > > >
> > > > I test above code on both x86 and arm. They shows different results.
> > > > x86: 31 80000000
> > > > arm: 31 00000000
> > > >
> > > > I think we still need this patch. we shoud not let it depends on gcc's
> > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Richard
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > My point is you may explain the exact problem you are seeing without
> > > >> > this patch
> > > >> The kernel don't have event_id < 32 case yet. I found the bug when
> > > >> I review the code.
> > > >> > and how the patch helps here.  In general, doing so would
> > > >> > win a warm feeling from reviewers much more easily than leaving the
> > > >> > commit message empty there.
> > > >> I understand your point that comment as much as possible.
> > > >>
> > >
> > > Shawn,
> > >
> > > I think Richard has made the issue quite clear here, the original
> > > code does seem to have some problems even to me, who do not
> > > understand the very details of the SDMA:
> > >
> > > - sdmac->event_mask0 = 1 << sdmac->event_id0;
> > > - sdmac->event_mask1 = 1 << (sdmac->event_id0 - 32);
> > >
> > > 1. if sdmac->event_id0 >= 32, which will cause event_mask0 to be incorrect
> > > 2. if sdmac->event_id < 32, sdmac->event_mask1 will be incorrect
> > >
> > > An alternate way is to use the standard bit operations:
> > >
> > > struct sdma_channel {
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > unsigned long event_mask[2];
> > >
> > > ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > set_bit(sdmac->event_id0, event_mask);
> > >
> > > Which avoids branch instructions and add a bit protection for the operation
> > > to be atomic enough (event_mask0/1 won't be inconsistent).
> > It's a good idea.
> I'm not sure whether I can always use bitops for every bit operation case,
> event it don't need atomic. bitops has locks to be atomic.
I'll use non-atomic bit ops, __set_bit etc.
>
> Thanks
> Richard
> > Thanks
> > Richard
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-12 15:27    [W:0.064 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site