[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:43:36 +0200
From: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, ggrundstrom@...effect.com,
ewg@...ts.openfabrics.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/14] nes: device structures and defines
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 18:33:24 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 August 2007 18:18:31 Roland Dreier wrote:
> >> > But there are indeed a few cases that look wrong.
> >>
> >> yes...
> >>
> >> > arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-calgary.c: writel(cpu_to_be32(val), target);
> >>
> >> eg this almost certainly wants to be
> >>
> >> writel(swab32(val), target);
> >>
> >> or something equivalent like
> >>
> >> __raw_writel(cpu_to_be32(val), target);
> >> /* plus some suffficent memory ordering */
> >>
> >> - R.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > certainly, yes.
> > Most likely the __raw_writel variant is portable, but I am not
> > sure. Anybody sure?
>
> Yes, it's portable. You must however be aware of the guarantees that
> writel() provides and __raw_writel() does not: no barriers or flushes,
> no endian conversions, no ordering constraints, ... Probably a few more
> details I'm forgetting too :)
writel doesn't guarantee flushing either.
readl does.
The barrier/ordering issue however might be a critical thing,
when using __raw_XXX. So one must always mmiowb() after such a write.
--
Greetings Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists