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

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:23:30PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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 :-)

Lucky me!

> 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.

Ok. I'll try putting together a v3 including this and the mmiowb work.

Thanks for the feedback,

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/