[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJA7tRahXGuPK=ktS5h86MZuV_o5cA3x1JbbyuwVspAHLKdP9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:37:29 +0100
From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.gcc@...glemail.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on arm64
< snip>
> I guess the semantics of a framebuffer are not strictly defined, but
> the current reality is that it is expected to have memory semantics
> (by Linux/glibc)
>
> Matt is saying fundamental properties of the underlying interconnects
> (AMBA) make that impossible on ARM, but I'd like to understand better
> if that is universally the case, and whether such a system is still
> PCIe compliant.
I don't know that side of the architecture enough to make any
definitive statements.
>
> The discussion about whether memcpy() should rely on unaligned
> accesses, and whether you should use it on device memory is orthogonal
> to that, and not the heart of the matter IMO
Then maybe take libc-alpha off if it isn't relevant.
regards
Ramana
Powered by blists - more mailing lists