Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Habana Labs kernel driver

[Oded Gabbay]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:07 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:58:41AM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:13 AM Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:11 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > This is v4 of the Habana Labs kernel driver patch-set. It contains fixes
> > > > > according to reviews done on v3, mainly for the command buffer, sysfs and MMU
> > > > > patches. In addition, patch 2/15 was reduced in size from 4.3MB to 1.4MB.
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch-set is rebased on v5.0-rc6.
> > > > >
> > > > > Link to v3 cover letter: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/4/1033
> > > > >
> > > > > Link to v2 cover letter: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/1003
> > > > >
> > > > > Link to v1 cover letter: https://lwn.net/Articles/777342/
> > > > >
> > > > > I would appricate any feedback, question and/or review.
> > > >
> > > > There's been some 0-day bot feedback on some of these patches now that I
> > > > put them in my -testing branch.  So I'm going to drop the patch series
> > > > from there now and wait for a v5 of the series that hopefully will have
> > > > those issues fixed :)
> > > >
> > Hi Greg,
> > I looked at the 4 warnings I received from your emails, and they all
> > appear in i386 architecture.
> > I don't want to support 32-bit kernel and I don't intend to support it.
> > Can we just specify in kconfig that we don't support it, and then you
> > won't get these warnings ?
>
> No, if you use the correct kernel types and castings, you should be
> fine.
>
> > I initially set in kconfig to support only x86_64, and you told me
> > (and you were right) not to limit to that. But I do think I would like
> > to disable the driver on i386.
>
> You might want to not support it on 32bit kernels, but even then, I
> think all you need to do here is use the proper kernel types and you
> will be ok.
>
> As an example:
>    drivers/misc/habanalabs/goya/goya.c: In function 'goya_early_init':
>    drivers/misc/habanalabs/goya/goya.c:404:4: warning: format '%llu' expects argument of type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 4 has type 'resource_size_t' {aka 'unsigned int'} [-Wformat=]
>        "Not " HL_NAME "? BAR %d size %llu, expecting %llu\n",
>        ^~~~~~
>
> Use the correct printk type for a resource_size_t.
>
> You got that warning twice.
>
> Another one is:
> >> drivers/misc/habanalabs/device.c:283:24: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
>      volatile u32 *paddr = (volatile u32 *) addr;
>
> Now using a volatile makes me want to say "you are doing it wrong!", as
> yes, you shouldn't be reading directly from a memory pointer, you need
> to use the correct iomem accessors, right?
>
> So I think just fixing this stuff up should be simple, the
> resource_size_t fix is needed no matter what size kernel you run on.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

ok, got it, will be fixed.

Regarding the volatile, this is not an I/O memory. This is host memory
that is changed by the device. That's why I wrote in the comment
there:
/*
* paddr is defined as volatile because it points to HOST memory,
* which is being written to by the device. Therefore, we can't use
* locks to synchronize it and it is not a memory-mapped register space
*/

Am I missing something here ? I don't think I should use the iomem
accessors on host memory, right ? Assuming I'm right, is there another
way to ensure the compiler won't optimize this without using the
volatile keyword ?

Thanks,
Oded