Skip to content
  1. Mar 05, 2014
  2. Feb 25, 2014
  3. Feb 19, 2014
  4. Feb 15, 2014
  5. Feb 14, 2014
  6. Feb 13, 2014
  7. Feb 12, 2014
  8. Feb 11, 2014
  9. Feb 10, 2014
  10. Feb 09, 2014
  11. Feb 08, 2014
    • Maxime Ripard's avatar
      ARM: sunxi: dt: Convert to the new SID compatibles · 01ab1167
      Maxime Ripard authored
      
      
      Switch the device tree to the new compatibles introduced in the SID drivers
      to have a common pattern accross all Allwinner SoCs.
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarMaxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
      01ab1167
    • Mark Rutland's avatar
      arm64: defconfig: Expand default enabled features · 55834a77
      Mark Rutland authored
      
      
      FPGA implementations of the Cortex-A57 and Cortex-A53 are now available
      in the form of the SMM-A57 and SMM-A53 Soft Macrocell Models (SMMs) for
      Versatile Express. As these attach to a Motherboard Express V2M-P1 it
      would be useful to have support for some V2M-P1 peripherals enabled by
      default.
      
      Additionally a couple of of features have been introduced since the last
      defconfig update (CMA, jump labels) that would be good to have enabled
      by default to ensure they are build and boot tested.
      
      This patch updates the arm64 defconfig to enable support for these
      devices and features. The arm64 Kconfig is modified to select
      HAVE_PATA_PLATFORM, which is required to enable support for the
      CompactFlash controller on the V2M-P1.
      
      A few options which don't need to appear in defconfig are trimmed:
      
      * BLK_DEV - selected by default
      * EXPERIMENTAL - otherwise gone from the kernel
      * MII - selected by drivers which require it
      * USB_SUPPORT - selected by default
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      55834a77
    • Will Deacon's avatar
      arm64: asm: remove redundant "cc" clobbers · 95c41896
      Will Deacon authored
      
      
      cbnz/tbnz don't update the condition flags, so remove the "cc" clobbers
      from inline asm blocks that only use these instructions to implement
      conditional branches.
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      95c41896
    • Will Deacon's avatar
      arm64: atomics: fix use of acquire + release for full barrier semantics · 8e86f0b4
      Will Deacon authored
      
      
      Linux requires a number of atomic operations to provide full barrier
      semantics, that is no memory accesses after the operation can be
      observed before any accesses up to and including the operation in
      program order.
      
      On arm64, these operations have been incorrectly implemented as follows:
      
      	// A, B, C are independent memory locations
      
      	<Access [A]>
      
      	// atomic_op (B)
      1:	ldaxr	x0, [B]		// Exclusive load with acquire
      	<op(B)>
      	stlxr	w1, x0, [B]	// Exclusive store with release
      	cbnz	w1, 1b
      
      	<Access [C]>
      
      The assumption here being that two half barriers are equivalent to a
      full barrier, so the only permitted ordering would be A -> B -> C
      (where B is the atomic operation involving both a load and a store).
      
      Unfortunately, this is not the case by the letter of the architecture
      and, in fact, the accesses to A and C are permitted to pass their
      nearest half barrier resulting in orderings such as Bl -> A -> C -> Bs
      or Bl -> C -> A -> Bs (where Bl is the load-acquire on B and Bs is the
      store-release on B). This is a clear violation of the full barrier
      requirement.
      
      The simple way to fix this is to implement the same algorithm as ARMv7
      using explicit barriers:
      
      	<Access [A]>
      
      	// atomic_op (B)
      	dmb	ish		// Full barrier
      1:	ldxr	x0, [B]		// Exclusive load
      	<op(B)>
      	stxr	w1, x0, [B]	// Exclusive store
      	cbnz	w1, 1b
      	dmb	ish		// Full barrier
      
      	<Access [C]>
      
      but this has the undesirable effect of introducing *two* full barrier
      instructions. A better approach is actually the following, non-intuitive
      sequence:
      
      	<Access [A]>
      
      	// atomic_op (B)
      1:	ldxr	x0, [B]		// Exclusive load
      	<op(B)>
      	stlxr	w1, x0, [B]	// Exclusive store with release
      	cbnz	w1, 1b
      	dmb	ish		// Full barrier
      
      	<Access [C]>
      
      The simple observations here are:
      
        - The dmb ensures that no subsequent accesses (e.g. the access to C)
          can enter or pass the atomic sequence.
      
        - The dmb also ensures that no prior accesses (e.g. the access to A)
          can pass the atomic sequence.
      
        - Therefore, no prior access can pass a subsequent access, or
          vice-versa (i.e. A is strictly ordered before C).
      
        - The stlxr ensures that no prior access can pass the store component
          of the atomic operation.
      
      The only tricky part remaining is the ordering between the ldxr and the
      access to A, since the absence of the first dmb means that we're now
      permitting re-ordering between the ldxr and any prior accesses.
      
      From an (arbitrary) observer's point of view, there are two scenarios:
      
        1. We have observed the ldxr. This means that if we perform a store to
           [B], the ldxr will still return older data. If we can observe the
           ldxr, then we can potentially observe the permitted re-ordering
           with the access to A, which is clearly an issue when compared to
           the dmb variant of the code. Thankfully, the exclusive monitor will
           save us here since it will be cleared as a result of the store and
           the ldxr will retry. Notice that any use of a later memory
           observation to imply observation of the ldxr will also imply
           observation of the access to A, since the stlxr/dmb ensure strict
           ordering.
      
        2. We have not observed the ldxr. This means we can perform a store
           and influence the later ldxr. However, that doesn't actually tell
           us anything about the access to [A], so we've not lost anything
           here either when compared to the dmb variant.
      
      This patch implements this solution for our barriered atomic operations,
      ensuring that we satisfy the full barrier requirements where they are
      needed.
      
      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
      Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      8e86f0b4