Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] clocksource: timer-keystone: introduce clocksourcedriver for Keystone

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Tuesday 04 February 2014 03:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> 
> Please do not top post.
> 
>> It was so in v1. But it was decided to use explicit memory barriers,
>> because we're always sure the memory barriers are there and that
>> they're properly documented. Also in this case I don't need to add
>> keystone readl/writel relaxed function variants and to use mixed calls of
>> writel/writel_relaxed functions.
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg294941.html
> 
> Fair enough, but we want a proper explanation for explicit barriers in
> the code and not in some random discussion of patch version X on some
> random mailing list.
> 
> Aside of that it should be iowmb(), but I might miss something ...
> 
Agree. __iowmb() seems to be more appropriate.

Regards,
Santosh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/