Re: DAC960 in 2.5.38, with new changes

From: David Mosberger (
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 15:53:13 EST

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:40:00 -0700 (PDT), "David S. Miller" <> said:

>> From: David Mosberger <>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:19:02 -0700

>> This looks like a porting-nightmare in the making. There's got to be a
>> better way to determine whether you need a writeq() vs. a writel().

> Or perhaps every platform should provide a writeq(), on 32-bit systems
> it may merely be implemented as two consequetive writel() calls.

True, but I was wondering whether driver writers will have an implicit
assumption on readX/writeX being atomic. I don't think anyone ever
promised that, but I suspect all existing implementations are indeed
atomic (it's true even for old Alphas which don't have sub-word

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:40 EST