From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:11:01 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/7] io-64-nonatomic: Add relaxed accessor variants In-Reply-To: <4658440.AyDy7GFvoa@wuerfel> References: <5485134.l18Z1dlVmn@wuerfel> <571E3781.3070609@arm.com> <4658440.AyDy7GFvoa@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20160425161101.GC2122@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:41:21PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 25 April 2016 16:28:01 Robin Murphy wrote: > > >>> > > >>> We _could_ - indeed I started doing that, but then decided that the > > >>> obfuscation of horrible macro-templated functions wasn't worth saving a > > >>> couple of hundred bytes in some code that isn't exactly difficult to > > >>> maintain and has needed touching once in 4 years. > > >>> > > >>> If you did want to go down the macro route, I may as well also generate both > > >>> lo-hi and hi-lo headers all from a single template, it'd be really clever... > > >>> > > >> > > >> I certainly wasn't suggesting any more than the obvious macroisation, > > >> but I'll leave it up to Arnd, as I think this falls on his lap. > > > > > > I'd prefer the open-coded variant as well. > > > > By that, do you mean sticking with the smmu_writeq() implementation in > > the driver and dropping this patch, or merging this patch as-is without > > further macro-magic? > > > > Sorry, that was really ambiguous on my end. I meant leaving patch 4/7 > as it is in the version you posted. I'm happy with that. Could I have your ack, so that I can queue it with the related SMMU patches, please? Will