[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140527203427.GC31850@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:34:28 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"monstr@...str.eu" <monstr@...str.eu>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"broonie@...aro.org" <broonie@...aro.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO
accessors
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:23:30PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 20:34 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > Do you mean the io{read,write} functions? Funnily enough, they're already
> > relaxed on ARM if you go by the semantics I've proposed. That implies we at
> > least need some Documentation to that effect...
> >
> > What do you do on ppc?
>
> They are not supposed to be relaxed. If they are, you probably have a
> whole lot of busted drivers :-)
Lucky me!
> They have the same semantics as readl/writel for memory and as inb/outb
> for IO space, they just allow to hide the "type" (memory vs. IO) from
> most of the driver code.
>
> We probably need to create a set of _relaxed variants.
Ok. I'll try putting together a v3 including this and the mmiowb work.
Thanks for the feedback,
Will
--
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