Re: [RFC] MMIO accessors & barriers documentation

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

Ar Llu, 2006-09-11 am 19:17 +1000, ysgrifennodd Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> > >  3- memcpy_to_io, memcpy_from_io: #1 semantics apply (all MMIO loads or
> > > stores are performed in order to each other). #2+#4 (stores) or #3
> > 
> > What is "in order" here. "In ascending order of address" would be
> > tighter.
> 
> In program order. Every time I say "in order", I mean "in program
> order". I agree that this is not enough precision as it's not obvious
> that memcpy will copy in ascending order of addresses (it doesn't have
> to), I'll add that precision... or not. THat could be another question.
> What do we want here ? I would rather have those strongly ordered for
> Class 1.

I'd rather memcpy_to/from_io only made guarantees about the start/end of
the transfer and not order of read/writes or size of read/writes. The
reason being that a more restrictive sequence can be efficiently
expressed using read/writefoo but the reverse is not true.

> > "Except where the underlying device is marked as cachable or
> > prefetchable"
> 
> You aren't supposed to use MMIO accessors on cacheable memory, are you ?

Why not. Providing it is in MMIO space, consider ROMs for example or
write path consider frame buffers.

> with cacheable mappings of anything behind HT... I'd keep use of
> cacheable mapping as an arch specific special case for now, and that
> definitely doesn't allow for MMIO accessors ...

I'm describing existing semantics 8)