On 8/29/20 10:29 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 5:46 AM Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But the pointer is already 32-bit, so simply cast the pointer to u32.
>
> Yeah, that code was completely pointless. If the pointer had actually
> been 64-bit, the old code would have warned too.
>
> The odd thing is that the fsl_iowrite64() functions make sense. It's
> only the fsl_ioread64() functions that seem to be written by somebody
> who is really confused.
>
> That said, this patch only humors the confusion. The cast to 'u32' is
> completely pointless. In fact, it seems to be actively wrong, because
> it means that the later "fsl_addr + 1" is done entirely incorrectly -
> it now literally adds "1" to an integer value, while the iowrite()
> functions will add one to a "u32 __iomem *" pointer (so will do
> pointer arithmetic, and add 4).
>
Outch.
> So this code has never ever worked correctly to begin with, but the
> patches to fix the warning miss the point. The problem isn't the
> warning, the problem is that the code is broken and completely wrong
> to begin with.
>
> And the "lower_32_bits()" thing has always been pure and utter
> confusion and complete garbage.
>
> I *think* the right patch is the one attached, but since this code is
> clearly utterly broken, I'd want somebody to test it.
>
> It has probably never ever worked on 32-bit powerpc, or did so purely
> by mistake (perhaps because nobody really cares - the only 64-bit use
> is this:
>
> static dma_addr_t get_cdar(struct fsldma_chan *chan)
> {
> return FSL_DMA_IN(chan, &chan->regs->cdar, 64) & ~FSL_DMA_SNEN;
> }
>
> and there are two users of that: one which ignores the return value,
> and one that looks like it might end up half-way working even if the
> value read was garbage (it's used only to compare against a "current
> descriptor" value).
>
> Anyway, the fix is definitely not to just shut up the warning. The
> warning is only a sign of utter confusion in that driver.
>
> Can somebody with the hardware test this on 32-bit ppc?
>
> And if not (judging by just how broken those functions are, maybe it
> never did work), can somebody with a ppc32 setup at least compile-test
> this patch and look at whether it makes sense, in ways the old code
> did not.
>
A bit more careful this time. For the attached patch:
Compile-tested-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
Except for
CHECK: spaces preferred around that '+' (ctx:VxV)
#29: FILE: drivers/dma/fsldma.h:223:
+ u32 val_lo = in_be32((u32 __iomem *)addr+1);
I don't see anything wrong with it either, so
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
Since I didn't see the real problem with the original code,
I'd take that with a grain of salt, though.
Guenter
