On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 11:27 +0300, Claudiu Manoil wrote:
On 10/3/2013 9:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 14:48 +0300, Claudiu Manoil wrote:
+static inline u16 read_txbd_stat(uint idx) +{
- return in_be16((u16 __iomem *)&txbd[idx].status);
+}
+static inline void write_txbd_stat(uint idx, u16 status) +{
- out_be16((u16 __iomem *)&txbd[idx].status, status);
+}
+static inline u16 read_rxbd_stat(uint idx) +{
- return in_be16((u16 __iomem *)&rxbd[idx].status);
+}
+static inline void write_rxbd_stat(uint idx, u16 status) +{
- out_be16((u16 __iomem *)&rxbd[idx].status, status);
+}
Do you need __force on these to make sparse happy?
No, we don't need __force in this case, in_be/out_be are less restrictive and take plain unsigned pointers (not __beNN pointers). On the other hand, they require the __iomem address space marker, to make sparse happy.
I thought you'd need __force to convert a non-iomem pointer to an __iomem pointer.
I'd rather see these declared as __iomem than use casts (at which point, you probably don't need per-field accessor functions).
Me too, but I wasn't sure how to do that. I thought __iomem works with pointer declarations only. But it turns out it works this way too:
Even if that were the case, you could put it on the pointers, which is how it's usually used.
-static struct txbd8 txbd[TX_BUF_CNT] __aligned(8); -static struct rxbd8 rxbd[PKTBUFSRX] __aligned(8); [...] +static struct txbd8 __iomem txbd[TX_BUF_CNT] __aligned(8); +static struct rxbd8 __iomem rxbd[PKTBUFSRX] __aligned(8);
[...]
for (i = 0; read_txbd_stat(tx_idx) & TXBD_READY; i++) {
for (i = 0; in_be16(&txbd[tx_idx].status) & TXBD_READY; i++) {[...]
And sparse doesn't complain about it. In this case I'll drop the read_txbd_stat() and friends. Is this acceptable?
Yes.
-Scott