[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345655343.2709.56.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:09:03 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 09:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Ben Hutchings
> <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, when the issue of 64-bit MMIO was discussed earlier this year, you
> > said nothing about this. I thought the conclusion was that any
> > definitions provided by <asm/io.h> *must* be atomic and drivers can use
> > <asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h> or
> > <asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h> as a fallback.
>
> Think 32-bit PCI with a 64-bit CPU.
[...]
Well, sure, I'm assuming that the driver is responsible for checking
that the device and its bus interface support an MMIO of the requested
width.
But the architecture code must be responsible for reporting whether the
host supports it, right?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists