[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1489f55-369d-2cff-ff36-b10fb5d3ee79@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:57:01 -0500
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
Subject: Re: About commit "io: change inX() to have their own IO barrier
overrides"
Hi John,
On 2/28/2020 4:52 AM, John Garry wrote:
> About the commit in the $subject 87fe2d543f81, would there be any
> specific reason why the logic pio versions of these functions did not
> get the same treatment or should not? I'm talking about lib/logic_pio.c
> here - commit 031e3601869c ("lib: Add generic PIO mapping method")
> introduced this.
>
> In fact, logic pio will override these for arm64 with the vanilla
> defconfig these days.
We only looked at inX()/inY() and readX()/writeX() API because the
semantics of these API are defined in the kernel documentation.
We looked at how to generalize this so that there is a uniform
behavior across different architectures.
Is logic PIO subject to ordering issues?
How is the behavior on different architectures?
As long as the expectations are set, I see no reason why it shouldn't
but, I'll let Arnd comment on it too.
Sinan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists