Re: [PATCH 1/4] msm: scm: Mark inline asm as volatile

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, David Brown wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 26 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 25 2011, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 18:44 +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> >> We don't want the compiler to remove these asm statements or
> >> >> reorder them in any way. Mark them as volatile to be sure.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c |    4 ++--
> >> >>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> >> 
> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c b/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
> >> >> index f4b9bc9..ba57b5a 100644
> >> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
> >> >> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ static u32 smc(u32 cmd_addr)
> >> >>         register u32 r0 asm("r0") = 1;
> >> >>         register u32 r1 asm("r1") = (u32)&context_id;
> >> >>         register u32 r2 asm("r2") = cmd_addr;
> >> >> -       asm(
> >> >> +       asm volatile(
> >> >>                 __asmeq("%0", "r0")
> >> >>                 __asmeq("%1", "r0")
> >> >>                 __asmeq("%2", "r1")
> >> >> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ u32 scm_get_version(void)
> >> >>                 return version;
> >> >> 
> >> >>         mutex_lock(&scm_lock);
> >> >> -       asm(
> >> >> +       asm volatile(
> >> >>                 __asmeq("%0", "r1")
> >> >>                 __asmeq("%1", "r0")
> >> >>                 __asmeq("%2", "r1")
> >> >
> >> > These asm blocks all have sensible looking output constraints. Why
> >> > do they need to be marked volatile?
> >> 
> >> Without the volatile, the compiler is free to assume the only side
> >> effects of the asm are to modify the output registers.  The volatile is
> >> needed to indicate to the compiler that the asm has other side effects.
> >> There isn't enough optimization, yet, in gcc to change the generated
> >> code in this case, so it happens to generate the correct code without
> >> it.
> >> 
> >> The second probably doesn't need it, unless we are expecting the version
> >> to change dynamically.  The volatile makes the scm_get_version()
> >> function clearly a call to scm, though, so is probably useful to
> >> document the intent.
> >
> > If the inline asm does have side effects which are not obvious other 
> > than producing a result for the output operand then it is a good idea to 
> > add a comment to that effect.  Otherwise it is always best to omit the 
> > volatile and let gcc move the inline asm around or even delete it 
> > entirely when possible.
> 
> Would this be better as a comment by the assembly or for the whole file
> or function?  The entire purpose of this file is to communicate with
> another logical processor, so it's all about producing side effects
> other than just modifying the registers or the memory.  Maybe a file
> comment briefly explaining that SCM runs in TrustZone and a short
> comment by each asm stating that it traps to the other logical cpu?

Now that I've looked more closely at the actual code, I think it is 
obvious enough that the volatile is needed and no extra comment should 
be required.


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