From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] edac x38: new MC driver module Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:16:20 +0000 Message-ID: <20081118121620.GB8625@linux-mips.org> References: <20081105222911.d76e7e1c.mitake@clustcom.com> <413709.12821.qm@web50106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20081106164641.ed369060.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081107152830.a42766f3.mitake@clustcom.com> <20081106223122.8a255211.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081107153824.0ec934e6.mitake@clustcom.com> <20081106231102.aab83cd4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081109112646.97c594b5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.5]:33957 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752027AbYKRM0w (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:26:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081109112646.97c594b5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Hitoshi Mitake , Hitoshi Mitake , Doug Thompson , dougthompson@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ktaka@clustcom.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 11:26:46AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Perhaps it would be better to have a CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_READQ and to then > disable these drivers on the architectures which don't provide > readq/writeq support. And we also need to define the exact semantics. Questions coming to mind: o are implementations performing 2 32-bit accesses acceptable? o if so, what ordering for the two accesses is acceptable? Ralf