[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e856de0b-e9a3-8228-7a73-4daa38cb4479@deltatee.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:24:58 -0600
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ntb@...glegroups.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] asm-generic/io.h: make ioread64 and iowrite64
universally available
On 6/22/2017 2:14 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> If a platform doesn't support 64bit I/O operations from the CPU then you
> either need to use some kind of platform/architecture specific interface
> if present or accept you don't have one.
Yes, I understand that.
The thing is that every user that's currently using it right now is
patching in their own version that splits it on non-64bit systems.
> It's not safe to split it. Possibly for some use cases you could add an
> ioread64_maysplit()
I'm open to doing something like that.
> What btw is the actual ARM compiler warning ? Is the compiler also trying
> to tell you it's a bad idea ?
It's just the compiler noting that you are mixing volatile and
non-volatile pointers. Strangely some io{read|write}XX use volatile but
most do not. But it's nothing crazy.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists