[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <483C5414.6050308@freescale.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:33:56 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...escale.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue
Trent Piepho wrote:
> Is there an issue with anything _besides_ coherent DMA?
>
> Could one have a special version of the accessors for drivers that
> want to assume they are strictly ordered vs coherent DMA memory?
> That would be much easier to get right, without slowing _everything_
> down.
It's better to be safe by default and then optimize the fast paths than
to be relaxed by default and hang the machine in some piece of code that
runs once a month. "Premature optimization is the root of all evil",
and what not.
> One could even go as far as to allow a driver to "#define
> WANT_STRICT_IO" and then it would get the strict versions. Add that
> to any driver that uses DMA and then worry about vetting those
> drivers.
See above -- if you must have a #define, then it should be WANT_RELAXED_IO.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists