Merge tag 'arm64-mmiowb' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux

Pull mmiowb removal from Will Deacon:
 "Remove Mysterious Macro Intended to Obscure Weird Behaviours (mmiowb())

  Remove mmiowb() from the kernel memory barrier API and instead, for
  architectures that need it, hide the barrier inside spin_unlock() when
  MMIO has been performed inside the critical section.

  The only relatively recent changes have been addressing review
  comments on the documentation, which is in a much better shape thanks
  to the efforts of Ben and Ingo.

  I was initially planning to split this into two pull requests so that
  you could run the coccinelle script yourself, however it's been plain
  sailing in linux-next so I've just included the whole lot here to keep
  things simple"

* tag 'arm64-mmiowb' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux: (23 commits)
  docs/memory-barriers.txt: Update I/O section to be clearer about CPU vs thread
  docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix style, spacing and grammar in I/O section
  arch: Remove dummy mmiowb() definitions from arch code
  net/ethernet/silan/sc92031: Remove stale comment about mmiowb()
  i40iw: Redefine i40iw_mmiowb() to do nothing
  scsi/qla1280: Remove stale comment about mmiowb()
  drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()
  drivers: Remove useless trailing comments from mmiowb() invocations
  Documentation: Kill all references to mmiowb()
  riscv/mmiowb: Hook up mmwiob() implementation to asm-generic code
  powerpc/mmiowb: Hook up mmwiob() implementation to asm-generic code
  ia64/mmiowb: Add unconditional mmiowb() to arch_spin_unlock()
  mips/mmiowb: Add unconditional mmiowb() to arch_spin_unlock()
  sh/mmiowb: Add unconditional mmiowb() to arch_spin_unlock()
  m68k/io: Remove useless definition of mmiowb()
  nds32/io: Remove useless definition of mmiowb()
  x86/io: Remove useless definition of mmiowb()
  arm64/io: Remove useless definition of mmiowb()
  ARM/io: Remove useless definition of mmiowb()
  mmiowb: Hook up mmiowb helpers to spinlocks and generic I/O accessors
  ...

3 files changed, 100 insertions, 198 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst
index b00b23903078..0e389378f71d 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst
@@ -103,51 +103,6 @@ continuing execution::
         ha->flags.ints_enabled = 0;
     }
 
-In addition to write posting, on some large multiprocessing systems
-(e.g. SGI Challenge, Origin and Altix machines) posted writes won't be
-strongly ordered coming from different CPUs. Thus it's important to
-properly protect parts of your driver that do memory-mapped writes with
-locks and use the :c:func:`mmiowb()` to make sure they arrive in the
-order intended. Issuing a regular readX() will also ensure write ordering,
-but should only be used when the 
-driver has to be sure that the write has actually arrived at the device
-(not that it's simply ordered with respect to other writes), since a
-full readX() is a relatively expensive operation.
-
-Generally, one should use :c:func:`mmiowb()` prior to releasing a spinlock
-that protects regions using :c:func:`writeb()` or similar functions that
-aren't surrounded by readb() calls, which will ensure ordering
-and flushing. The following pseudocode illustrates what might occur if
-write ordering isn't guaranteed via :c:func:`mmiowb()` or one of the
-readX() functions::
-
-    CPU A:  spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_lock, flags)
-    CPU A:  ...
-    CPU A:  writel(newval, ring_ptr);
-    CPU A:  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_lock, flags)
-            ...
-    CPU B:  spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_lock, flags)
-    CPU B:  writel(newval2, ring_ptr);
-    CPU B:  ...
-    CPU B:  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_lock, flags)
-
-In the case above, newval2 could be written to ring_ptr before newval.
-Fixing it is easy though::
-
-    CPU A:  spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_lock, flags)
-    CPU A:  ...
-    CPU A:  writel(newval, ring_ptr);
-    CPU A:  mmiowb(); /* ensure no other writes beat us to the device */
-    CPU A:  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_lock, flags)
-            ...
-    CPU B:  spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_lock, flags)
-    CPU B:  writel(newval2, ring_ptr);
-    CPU B:  ...
-    CPU B:  mmiowb();
-    CPU B:  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_lock, flags)
-
-See tg3.c for a real world example of how to use :c:func:`mmiowb()`
-
 PCI ordering rules also guarantee that PIO read responses arrive after any
 outstanding DMA writes from that bus, since for some devices the result of
 a readb() call may signal to the driver that a DMA transaction is
diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst
index 6d85b5a2598d..44deb52beeb4 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst
@@ -132,10 +132,6 @@ precludes passing these pages to userspace.
 P2P memory is also technically IO memory but should never have any side
 effects behind it. Thus, the order of loads and stores should not be important
 and ioreadX(), iowriteX() and friends should not be necessary.
-However, as the memory is not cache coherent, if access ever needs to
-be protected by a spinlock then :c:func:`mmiowb()` must be used before
-unlocking the lock. (See ACQUIRES VS I/O ACCESSES in
-Documentation/memory-barriers.txt)
 
 
 P2P DMA Support Library
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1c22b21ae922..f70ebcdfe592 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1937,21 +1937,6 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
      information on consistent memory.
 
 
-MMIO WRITE BARRIER
-------------------
-
-The Linux kernel also has a special barrier for use with memory-mapped I/O
-writes:
-
-	mmiowb();
-
-This is a variation on the mandatory write barrier that causes writes to weakly
-ordered I/O regions to be partially ordered.  Its effects may go beyond the
-CPU->Hardware interface and actually affect the hardware at some level.
-
-See the subsection "Acquires vs I/O accesses" for more information.
-
-
 ===============================
 IMPLICIT KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
 ===============================
@@ -2317,75 +2302,6 @@ But it won't see any of:
 	*E, *F or *G following RELEASE Q
 
 
-
-ACQUIRES VS I/O ACCESSES
-------------------------
-
-Under certain circumstances (especially involving NUMA), I/O accesses within
-two spinlocked sections on two different CPUs may be seen as interleaved by the
-PCI bridge, because the PCI bridge does not necessarily participate in the
-cache-coherence protocol, and is therefore incapable of issuing the required
-read memory barriers.
-
-For example:
-
-	CPU 1				CPU 2
-	===============================	===============================
-	spin_lock(Q)
-	writel(0, ADDR)
-	writel(1, DATA);
-	spin_unlock(Q);
-					spin_lock(Q);
-					writel(4, ADDR);
-					writel(5, DATA);
-					spin_unlock(Q);
-
-may be seen by the PCI bridge as follows:
-
-	STORE *ADDR = 0, STORE *ADDR = 4, STORE *DATA = 1, STORE *DATA = 5
-
-which would probably cause the hardware to malfunction.
-
-
-What is necessary here is to intervene with an mmiowb() before dropping the
-spinlock, for example:
-
-	CPU 1				CPU 2
-	===============================	===============================
-	spin_lock(Q)
-	writel(0, ADDR)
-	writel(1, DATA);
-	mmiowb();
-	spin_unlock(Q);
-					spin_lock(Q);
-					writel(4, ADDR);
-					writel(5, DATA);
-					mmiowb();
-					spin_unlock(Q);
-
-this will ensure that the two stores issued on CPU 1 appear at the PCI bridge
-before either of the stores issued on CPU 2.
-
-
-Furthermore, following a store by a load from the same device obviates the need
-for the mmiowb(), because the load forces the store to complete before the load
-is performed:
-
-	CPU 1				CPU 2
-	===============================	===============================
-	spin_lock(Q)
-	writel(0, ADDR)
-	a = readl(DATA);
-	spin_unlock(Q);
-					spin_lock(Q);
-					writel(4, ADDR);
-					b = readl(DATA);
-					spin_unlock(Q);
-
-
-See Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst for more information.
-
-
 =================================
 WHERE ARE MEMORY BARRIERS NEEDED?
 =================================
@@ -2532,16 +2448,9 @@ the device to malfunction.
 Inside of the Linux kernel, I/O should be done through the appropriate accessor
 routines - such as inb() or writel() - which know how to make such accesses
 appropriately sequential.  While this, for the most part, renders the explicit
-use of memory barriers unnecessary, there are a couple of situations where they
-might be needed:
-
- (1) On some systems, I/O stores are not strongly ordered across all CPUs, and
-     so for _all_ general drivers locks should be used and mmiowb() must be
-     issued prior to unlocking the critical section.
-
- (2) If the accessor functions are used to refer to an I/O memory window with
-     relaxed memory access properties, then _mandatory_ memory barriers are
-     required to enforce ordering.
+use of memory barriers unnecessary, if the accessor functions are used to refer
+to an I/O memory window with relaxed memory access properties, then _mandatory_
+memory barriers are required to enforce ordering.
 
 See Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst for more information.
 
@@ -2586,8 +2495,7 @@ explicit barriers are used.
 
 Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such
 sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O
-registers that form implicit I/O barriers.  If this isn't sufficient then an
-mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly.
+registers that form implicit I/O barriers.
 
 
 A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines
@@ -2599,71 +2507,114 @@ likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering.
 KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS
 ==========================
 
-When accessing I/O memory, drivers should use the appropriate accessor
-functions:
-
- (*) inX(), outX():
-
-     These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but
-     that's primarily a CPU-specific concept.  The i386 and x86_64 processors
-     do indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
-     CPUs don't have such a concept.
-
-     The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept which - on such
-     CPUs as i386 and x86_64 - readily maps to the CPU's concept of I/O
-     space.  However, it may also be mapped as a virtual I/O space in the CPU's
-     memory map, particularly on those CPUs that don't support alternate I/O
-     spaces.
-
-     Accesses to this space may be fully synchronous (as on i386), but
-     intermediary bridges (such as the PCI host bridge) may not fully honour
-     that.
-
-     They are guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to each other.
-
-     They are not guaranteed to be fully ordered with respect to other types of
-     memory and I/O operation.
+Interfacing with peripherals via I/O accesses is deeply architecture and device
+specific. Therefore, drivers which are inherently non-portable may rely on
+specific behaviours of their target systems in order to achieve synchronization
+in the most lightweight manner possible. For drivers intending to be portable
+between multiple architectures and bus implementations, the kernel offers a
+series of accessor functions that provide various degrees of ordering
+guarantees:
 
  (*) readX(), writeX():
 
-     Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with
-     respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics
-     defined for the memory window through which they're accessing.  On later
-     i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the
-     MTRR registers.
+	The readX() and writeX() MMIO accessors take a pointer to the
+	peripheral being accessed as an __iomem * parameter. For pointers
+	mapped with the default I/O attributes (e.g. those returned by
+	ioremap()), the ordering guarantees are as follows:
+
+	1. All readX() and writeX() accesses to the same peripheral are ordered
+	   with respect to each other. This ensures that MMIO register accesses
+	   by the same CPU thread to a particular device will arrive in program
+	   order.
+
+	2. A writeX() issued by a CPU thread holding a spinlock is ordered
+	   before a writeX() to the same peripheral from another CPU thread
+	   issued after a later acquisition of the same spinlock. This ensures
+	   that MMIO register writes to a particular device issued while holding
+	   a spinlock will arrive in an order consistent with acquisitions of
+	   the lock.
+
+	3. A writeX() by a CPU thread to the peripheral will first wait for the
+	   completion of all prior writes to memory either issued by, or
+	   propagated to, the same thread. This ensures that writes by the CPU
+	   to an outbound DMA buffer allocated by dma_alloc_coherent() will be
+	   visible to a DMA engine when the CPU writes to its MMIO control
+	   register to trigger the transfer.
+
+	4. A readX() by a CPU thread from the peripheral will complete before
+	   any subsequent reads from memory by the same thread can begin. This
+	   ensures that reads by the CPU from an incoming DMA buffer allocated
+	   by dma_alloc_coherent() will not see stale data after reading from
+	   the DMA engine's MMIO status register to establish that the DMA
+	   transfer has completed.
+
+	5. A readX() by a CPU thread from the peripheral will complete before
+	   any subsequent delay() loop can begin execution on the same thread.
+	   This ensures that two MMIO register writes by the CPU to a peripheral
+	   will arrive at least 1us apart if the first write is immediately read
+	   back with readX() and udelay(1) is called prior to the second
+	   writeX():
+
+		writel(42, DEVICE_REGISTER_0); // Arrives at the device...
+		readl(DEVICE_REGISTER_0);
+		udelay(1);
+		writel(42, DEVICE_REGISTER_1); // ...at least 1us before this.
+
+	The ordering properties of __iomem pointers obtained with non-default
+	attributes (e.g. those returned by ioremap_wc()) are specific to the
+	underlying architecture and therefore the guarantees listed above cannot
+	generally be relied upon for accesses to these types of mappings.
+
+ (*) readX_relaxed(), writeX_relaxed():
+
+	These are similar to readX() and writeX(), but provide weaker memory
+	ordering guarantees. Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
+	respect to locking, normal memory accesses or delay() loops (i.e.
+	bullets 2-5 above) but they are still guaranteed to be ordered with
+	respect to other accesses from the same CPU thread to the same
+	peripheral when operating on __iomem pointers mapped with the default
+	I/O attributes.
+
+ (*) readsX(), writesX():
+
+	The readsX() and writesX() MMIO accessors are designed for accessing
+	register-based, memory-mapped FIFOs residing on peripherals that are not
+	capable of performing DMA. Consequently, they provide only the ordering
+	guarantees of readX_relaxed() and writeX_relaxed(), as documented above.
 
-     Ordinarily, these will be guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined,
-     provided they're not accessing a prefetchable device.
+ (*) inX(), outX():
 
-     However, intermediary hardware (such as a PCI bridge) may indulge in
-     deferral if it so wishes; to flush a store, a load from the same location
-     is preferred[*], but a load from the same device or from configuration
-     space should suffice for PCI.
+	The inX() and outX() accessors are intended to access legacy port-mapped
+	I/O peripherals, which may require special instructions on some
+	architectures (notably x86). The port number of the peripheral being
+	accessed is passed as an argument.
 
-     [*] NOTE! attempting to load from the same location as was written to may
-	 cause a malfunction - consider the 16550 Rx/Tx serial registers for
-	 example.
+	Since many CPU architectures ultimately access these peripherals via an
+	internal virtual memory mapping, the portable ordering guarantees
+	provided by inX() and outX() are the same as those provided by readX()
+	and writeX() respectively when accessing a mapping with the default I/O
+	attributes.
 
-     Used with prefetchable I/O memory, an mmiowb() barrier may be required to
-     force stores to be ordered.
+	Device drivers may expect outX() to emit a non-posted write transaction
+	that waits for a completion response from the I/O peripheral before
+	returning. This is not guaranteed by all architectures and is therefore
+	not part of the portable ordering semantics.
 
-     Please refer to the PCI specification for more information on interactions
-     between PCI transactions.
+ (*) insX(), outsX():
 
- (*) readX_relaxed(), writeX_relaxed()
+	As above, the insX() and outsX() accessors provide the same ordering
+	guarantees as readsX() and writesX() respectively when accessing a
+	mapping with the default I/O attributes.
 
-     These are similar to readX() and writeX(), but provide weaker memory
-     ordering guarantees.  Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
-     respect to normal memory accesses (e.g. DMA buffers) nor do they guarantee
-     ordering with respect to LOCK or UNLOCK operations.  If the latter is
-     required, an mmiowb() barrier can be used.  Note that relaxed accesses to
-     the same peripheral are guaranteed to be ordered with respect to each
-     other.
+ (*) ioreadX(), iowriteX():
 
- (*) ioreadX(), iowriteX()
+	These will perform appropriately for the type of access they're actually
+	doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX().
 
-     These will perform appropriately for the type of access they're actually
-     doing, be it inX()/outX() or readX()/writeX().
+With the exception of the string accessors (insX(), outsX(), readsX() and
+writesX()), all of the above assume that the underlying peripheral is
+little-endian and will therefore perform byte-swapping operations on big-endian
+architectures.
 
 
 ========================================