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

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 20:34 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

> 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?

They are not supposed to be relaxed. If they are, you probably have a
whole lot of busted drivers :-)

They have the same semantics as readl/writel for memory and as inb/outb
for IO space, they just allow to hide the "type" (memory vs. IO) from
most of the driver code.

We probably need to create a set of _relaxed variants.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/