Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors

[Will Deacon]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 17:47 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > This is version 2 of the series I originally posted here:
> > 
> >   https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/17/269
> > 
> > Changes since v1 include:
> > 
> >  - Added relevant acks from arch maintainers
> >  - Fixed potential compiler re-ordering issue for x86 definitions
> > 
> > I'd *really* appreciate some feedback on the proposed semantics here, but
> > acks are still good :)
> > 
> > The original cover letter is duplicated below.
> 
> Question (sorry if I missed an existing explanation...), do we have an
> equivalent bunch for iomap ?

Do you mean the io{read,write} functions? Funnily enough, they're already
relaxed on ARM if you go by the semantics I've proposed. That implies we at
least need some Documentation to that effect...

What do you do on ppc?

Will
--
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/