>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:40:00 -0700 (PDT), "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> said:
>> From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
>> 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
load/stores).
--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:40 EST