From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: davidm@hpl.hp.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com
Cc: dmo@osdl.org, axboe@suse.de, phillips@arcor.de,
_deepfire@mail.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: DAC960 in 2.5.38, with new changes
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:57:08 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020923.135708.10698522.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15759.32569.964762.776074@napali.hpl.hp.com>
From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:53:13 -0700
> Or perhaps every platform should provide a writeq(), on 32-bit systems
> it may merely be implemented as two consequetive writel() calls.
True, but I was wondering whether driver writers will have an implicit
assumption on readX/writeX being atomic. I don't think anyone ever
promised that, but I suspect all existing implementations are indeed
atomic (it's true even for old Alphas which don't have sub-word
load/stores).
On many platforms, two consequetive __raw_writel()'s might even
combine to an atomic 64-bit store to PCI space. :-)
I don't think the proposed 32-bit behavior is off the mark, and
anyways x86 can actually make the 64-bit store I believe if it
wants at least on more recent processors.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-23 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-23 19:04 DAC960 in 2.5.38, with new changes Dave Olien
2002-09-23 19:19 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 20:40 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 20:53 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 20:57 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2002-09-23 21:24 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 21:17 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 21:32 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 21:28 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 21:31 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 21:33 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 21:28 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 21:40 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 21:45 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 20:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 20:54 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-24 16:54 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 17:11 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 17:28 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 18:21 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 18:25 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 19:12 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 18:45 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 17:50 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-24 18:27 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 17:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-25 22:20 ` DAC960, documentation links Daniel Phillips
2002-09-25 22:23 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-26 0:02 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
2002-09-26 16:13 ` DAC960 in 2.5.38, with new changes Alan Cox
2002-09-24 17:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-25 21:42 ` davide.rossetti
2002-09-23 20:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 21:41 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-23 21:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 22:03 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-23 22:22 ` Daniel Phillips
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020923.135708.10698522.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=_deepfire@mail.ru \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com \
--cc=dmo@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillips@arcor.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.