Agni for 3110 cpu gov issue #4

rogerpdg · 2014-11-20T18:31:51Z

I found that interactive governor has boostpulse with some characters like sh: < 3.
I dont know if its a mistske writing something, but my log error is always saying that ti omap powerhal error writing to......... Boostpulse no such device.
iput two screenshots
I tried to write it at xda but i cant post at agni post.

…optimizations Recent GCC versions (e.g. GCC-4.7.2) perform optimizations based on assumptions about the implementation of memset and similar functions. The current ARM optimized memset code does not return the value of its first argument, as is usually expected from standard implementations. For instance in the following function: void debug_mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter) { memset(waiter, MUTEX_DEBUG_INIT, sizeof(*waiter)); waiter->magic = waiter; INIT_LIST_HEAD(&waiter->list); } compiled as: 800554d0 <debug_mutex_lock_common>: 800554d0: e92d4008 push {r3, lr} 800554d4: e1a00001 mov r0, r1 800554d8: e3a02010 mov r2, #16 ; 0x10 800554dc: e3a01011 mov r1, #17 ; 0x11 800554e0: eb04426e bl 80165ea0 <memset> 800554e4: e1a03000 mov r3, r0 800554e8: e583000c str r0, [r3, #12] 800554ec: e5830000 str r0, [r3] 800554f0: e5830004 str r0, [r3, #4] 800554f4: e8bd8008 pop {r3, pc} GCC assumes memset returns the value of pointer 'waiter' in register r0; causing register/memory corruptions. This patch fixes the return value of the assembly version of memset. It adds a 'mov' instruction and merges an additional load+store into existing load/store instructions. For ease of review, here is a breakdown of the patch into 4 simple steps: Step 1 ====== Perform the following substitutions: ip -> r8, then r0 -> ip, and insert 'mov ip, r0' as the first statement of the function. At this point, we have a memset() implementation returning the proper result, but corrupting r8 on some paths (the ones that were using ip). Step 2 ====== Make sure r8 is saved and restored when (! CALGN(1)+0) == 1: save r8: - str lr, [sp, #-4]! + stmfd sp!, {r8, lr} and restore r8 on both exit paths: - ldmeqfd sp!, {pc} @ Now <64 bytes to go. + ldmeqfd sp!, {r8, pc} @ Now <64 bytes to go. (...) tst r2, #16 stmneia ip!, {r1, r3, r8, lr} - ldr lr, [sp], #4 + ldmfd sp!, {r8, lr} Step 3 ====== Make sure r8 is saved and restored when (! CALGN(1)+0) == 0: save r8: - stmfd sp!, {r4-r7, lr} + stmfd sp!, {r4-r8, lr} and restore r8 on both exit paths: bgt 3b - ldmeqfd sp!, {r4-r7, pc} + ldmeqfd sp!, {r4-r8, pc} (...) tst r2, #16 stmneia ip!, {r4-r7} - ldmfd sp!, {r4-r7, lr} + ldmfd sp!, {r4-r8, lr} Step 4 ====== Rewrite register list "r4-r7, r8" as "r4-r8". Signed-off-by: Ivan Djelic <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Russell King <[email protected]>

This moves ARM over to the asm-generic/unaligned.h header. This has the benefit of better code generated especially for ARMv7 on gcc 4.7+ compilers. As Arnd Bergmann, points out: The asm-generic version uses the "struct" version for native-endian unaligned access and the "byteshift" version for the opposite endianess. The current ARM version however uses the "byteshift" implementation for both. Thanks to Nicolas Pitre for the excellent analysis: Test case: int foo (int *x) { return get_unaligned(x); } long long bar (long long *x) { return get_unaligned(x); } With the current ARM version: foo: ldrb r3, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B] ldrb r1, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B] ldrb r2, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] mov r3, r3, asl #16 @ tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], ldrb r0, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B] orr r3, r3, r1, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp155, tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], orr r3, r3, r2 @ tmp157, tmp155, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 @,, tmp157, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], bx lr @ bar: stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} @, mov r2, #0 @ tmp184, ldrb r5, [r0, #6] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B] ldrb r4, [r0, #5] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B] ldrb ip, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B] ldrb r1, [r0, #4] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B] mov r5, r5, asl #16 @ tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], ldrb r7, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B] orr r5, r5, r4, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp176, tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], ldrb r6, [r0, CyanogenMod#7] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B] orr r5, r5, r1 @ tmp178, tmp176, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B] ldrb r4, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] mov ip, ip, asl #16 @ tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], ldrb r1, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B] orr ip, ip, r7, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp189, tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], orr r3, r5, r6, asl #24 @,, tmp178, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], orr ip, ip, r4 @ tmp191, tmp189, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] orr ip, ip, r1, asl #24 @, tmp194, tmp191, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], mov r1, r3 @, orr r0, r2, ip @ tmp171, tmp184, tmp194 ldmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} bx lr In both cases the code is slightly suboptimal. One may wonder why wasting r2 with the constant 0 in the second case for example. And all the mov's could be folded in subsequent orr's, etc. Now with the asm-generic version: foo: ldr r0, [r0, #0] @ unaligned @,* x bx lr @ bar: mov r3, r0 @ x, x ldr r0, [r0, #0] @ unaligned @,* x ldr r1, [r3, #4] @ unaligned @, bx lr @ This is way better of course, but only because this was compiled for ARMv7. In this case the compiler knows that the hardware can do unaligned word access. This isn't that obvious for foo(), but if we remove the get_unaligned() from bar as follows: long long bar (long long *x) {return *x; } then the resulting code is: bar: ldmia r0, {r0, r1} @ x,, bx lr @ So this proves that the presumed aligned vs unaligned cases does have influence on the instructions the compiler may use and that the above unaligned code results are not just an accident. Still... this isn't fully conclusive without at least looking at the resulting assembly fron a pre ARMv6 compilation. Let's see with an ARMv5 target: foo: ldrb r3, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp139,* x ldrb r1, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp140, ldrb r2, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp143, ldrb r0, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp146, orr r3, r3, r1, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140, orr r3, r3, r2, asl #16 @, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143, orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 @,, tmp145, tmp146, bx lr @ bar: stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} @, ldrb r2, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp139,* x ldrb r7, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp140, ldrb r3, [r0, #4] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp149, ldrb r6, [r0, #5] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp150, ldrb r5, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp143, ldrb r4, [r0, #6] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp153, ldrb r1, [r0, CyanogenMod#7] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp156, ldrb ip, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp146, orr r2, r2, r7, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140, orr r3, r3, r6, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp152, tmp149, tmp150, orr r2, r2, r5, asl #16 @, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143, orr r3, r3, r4, asl #16 @, tmp155, tmp152, tmp153, orr r0, r2, ip, asl #24 @,, tmp145, tmp146, orr r1, r3, r1, asl #24 @,, tmp155, tmp156, ldmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} bx lr Compared to the initial results, this is really nicely optimized and I couldn't do much better if I were to hand code it myself. Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Russell King <[email protected]>

Add "True CD-ROM emulation" support

This moves ARM over to the asm-generic/unaligned.h header. This has the benefit of better code generated especially for ARMv7 on gcc 4.7+ compilers. As Arnd Bergmann, points out: The asm-generic version uses the "struct" version for native-endian unaligned access and the "byteshift" version for the opposite endianess. The current ARM version however uses the "byteshift" implementation for both. Thanks to Nicolas Pitre for the excellent analysis: Test case: int foo (int *x) { return get_unaligned(x); } long long bar (long long *x) { return get_unaligned(x); } With the current ARM version: foo: ldrb r3, [r0, psndna88#2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B] ldrb r1, [r0, psndna88#1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B] ldrb r2, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] mov r3, r3, asl #16 @ tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], ldrb r0, [r0, psndna88#3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B] orr r3, r3, r1, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp155, tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], orr r3, r3, r2 @ tmp157, tmp155, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 @,, tmp157, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], bx lr @ bar: stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} @, mov r2, #0 @ tmp184, ldrb r5, [r0, psndna88#6] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B] ldrb r4, [r0, psndna88#5] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B] ldrb ip, [r0, psndna88#2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B] ldrb r1, [r0, psndna88#4] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B] mov r5, r5, asl #16 @ tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], ldrb r7, [r0, psndna88#1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B] orr r5, r5, r4, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp176, tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], ldrb r6, [r0, CyanogenMod#7] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B] orr r5, r5, r1 @ tmp178, tmp176, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B] ldrb r4, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] mov ip, ip, asl #16 @ tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], ldrb r1, [r0, psndna88#3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B] orr ip, ip, r7, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp189, tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], orr r3, r5, r6, asl #24 @,, tmp178, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], orr ip, ip, r4 @ tmp191, tmp189, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)] orr ip, ip, r1, asl #24 @, tmp194, tmp191, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], mov r1, r3 @, orr r0, r2, ip @ tmp171, tmp184, tmp194 ldmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} bx lr In both cases the code is slightly suboptimal. One may wonder why wasting r2 with the constant 0 in the second case for example. And all the mov's could be folded in subsequent orr's, etc. Now with the asm-generic version: foo: ldr r0, [r0, #0] @ unaligned @,* x bx lr @ bar: mov r3, r0 @ x, x ldr r0, [r0, #0] @ unaligned @,* x ldr r1, [r3, psndna88#4] @ unaligned @, bx lr @ This is way better of course, but only because this was compiled for ARMv7. In this case the compiler knows that the hardware can do unaligned word access. This isn't that obvious for foo(), but if we remove the get_unaligned() from bar as follows: long long bar (long long *x) {return *x; } then the resulting code is: bar: ldmia r0, {r0, r1} @ x,, bx lr @ So this proves that the presumed aligned vs unaligned cases does have influence on the instructions the compiler may use and that the above unaligned code results are not just an accident. Still... this isn't fully conclusive without at least looking at the resulting assembly fron a pre ARMv6 compilation. Let's see with an ARMv5 target: foo: ldrb r3, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp139,* x ldrb r1, [r0, psndna88#1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp140, ldrb r2, [r0, psndna88#2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp143, ldrb r0, [r0, psndna88#3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp146, orr r3, r3, r1, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140, orr r3, r3, r2, asl #16 @, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143, orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 @,, tmp145, tmp146, bx lr @ bar: stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} @, ldrb r2, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp139,* x ldrb r7, [r0, psndna88#1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp140, ldrb r3, [r0, psndna88#4] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp149, ldrb r6, [r0, psndna88#5] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp150, ldrb r5, [r0, psndna88#2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp143, ldrb r4, [r0, psndna88#6] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp153, ldrb r1, [r0, CyanogenMod#7] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp156, ldrb ip, [r0, psndna88#3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp146, orr r2, r2, r7, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140, orr r3, r3, r6, asl CyanogenMod#8 @, tmp152, tmp149, tmp150, orr r2, r2, r5, asl #16 @, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143, orr r3, r3, r4, asl #16 @, tmp155, tmp152, tmp153, orr r0, r2, ip, asl #24 @,, tmp145, tmp146, orr r1, r3, r1, asl #24 @,, tmp155, tmp156, ldmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} bx lr Compared to the initial results, this is really nicely optimized and I couldn't do much better if I were to hand code it myself. Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Russell King <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Samuel Pascua <[email protected]>

psndna88 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 30, 2014

Merge pull request #4 from drizzt/pureSTOCK-N7100-4.4.2

3b7adad

Add "True CD-ROM emulation" support

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Agni for 3110 cpu gov issue #4

Agni for 3110 cpu gov issue #4

rogerpdg commented Nov 20, 2014

Agni for 3110 cpu gov issue #4

Agni for 3110 cpu gov issue #4

Comments

rogerpdg commented Nov 20, 2014