On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, James Hogan wrote:
diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h
index 2b8bbbcb9be0..d2a63abfc7c6 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -96,9 +96,15 @@
# define smp_rmb() barrier()
# define smp_wmb() __syncw()
# else
+# ifdef CONFIG_MIPS_LIGHTWEIGHT_SYNC
+# define smp_mb() __asm__ __volatile__("sync 0x10" : : :"memory")
+# define smp_rmb() __asm__ __volatile__("sync 0x13" : : :"memory")
+# define smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__("sync 0x4" : : :"memory")
binutils appears to support the sync_mb, sync_rmb, sync_wmb aliases
since version 2.21. Can we safely use them?
I suggest that we don't -- we still officially support binutils 2.12 and
have other places where we even use `.word' to insert instructions current
versions of binutils properly handle. It may be worth noting in a comment
though that these encodings correspond to these operations that you named.