From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gra-lx1.iram.es (gra-lx1.iram.es [150.214.224.41]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589401007E1 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:49:20 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:49:04 +0100 From: Gabriel Paubert To: Jonathan Haws Subject: Re: Accessing flash directly from User Space [SOLVED] Message-ID: <20091030174904.GA2061@iram.es> References: <200910301556.11349.mb@bu3sch.de> <20091030150855.GA15046@mail.gnudd.com> <200910301624.03989.mb@bu3sch.de> <4AEB0ABB.8070605@neli.hopto.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: "bgat@billgatliff.com" , "scottwood@freescale.com" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Alessandro Rubini List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:46:46AM -0600, Jonathan Haws wrote: > > Michael Buesch wrote: > > > Yes, I think the barrier is wrong. > > > Please try with > > > > > > #define mb() __asm__ __volatile__("eieio\n sync\n" : : : > > "memory") > > > > > > For uncached memory, eieio should be enough. > > I tried eieio alone and it did not work. It needed the above command to take care of it all. Surprising. But sync is a superset of eieio, no? In this case a sync alone should be sufficient (although an eieio followed by a sync should not be much slower than a sync alone). Gabriel