[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6461444.oollnBsbrb@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:29:41 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dmaengine: qcom_bam_dma: clear BAM interrupt only if it is rised
On Tuesday 01 December 2015 11:14:57 Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> + if (srcs & BAM_IRQ) {
> clr_mask = readl_relaxed(bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_STTS));
>
> - /* don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM registers */
> - mb();
> + /*
> + * don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM
> + * registers
> + */
> + mb();
>
> - writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR));
> + writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR));
> + }
>
I think the comment here should be moved: change the writel_relaxed()
to writel(), which already includes the appropriate barriers, and
add a comment at the readl_relaxed() to explain why it doesn't need
a barrier.
Arnd
--
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