From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:34:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20140527203427.GC31850@arm.com> References: <1400777250-17335-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1401054470.3958.30.camel@pasglop> <20140527193425.GC30751@arm.com> <1401222210.20915.79.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:58427 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751186AbaE0Ue6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2014 16:34:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1401222210.20915.79.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "monstr@monstr.eu" , "dhowells@redhat.com" , "broonie@linaro.org" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:23:30PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 20:34 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Do you mean the io{read,write} functions? Funnily enough, they're already > > relaxed on ARM if you go by the semantics I've proposed. That implies we at > > least need some Documentation to that effect... > > > > What do you do on ppc? > > They are not supposed to be relaxed. If they are, you probably have a > whole lot of busted drivers :-) Lucky me! > They have the same semantics as readl/writel for memory and as inb/outb > for IO space, they just allow to hide the "type" (memory vs. IO) from > most of the driver code. > > We probably need to create a set of _relaxed variants. Ok. I'll try putting together a v3 including this and the mmiowb work. Thanks for the feedback, Will