[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345656446.2709.65.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:27:26 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 10:12 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 10:09 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> No, the architecture code *can't*.
So, let me check that I understand this right:
- To support 32-bit architectures, a driver should include one of two
different definitions of readq/writeq depending on which order the
device needs to receive 32-bit operations.
- On 64-bit architectures (or at least x86_64), the system might split
up readq/writeq into 32-bit operations in unspecified order, and the
driver can't control this.
If this is right, how can it be safe to use readq/writeq at all?
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