From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com (Ivan Khoronzhuk) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 00:35:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/3] clocksource: timer-keystone: introduce clocksource driver for Keystone In-Reply-To: <52F1668B.9040507@ti.com> References: <1391513453-21140-1-git-send-email-ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com> <1391513453-21140-2-git-send-email-ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com> <52F11B5C.40407@ti.com> <52F1668B.9040507@ti.com> Message-ID: <52F16B4F.2010801@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Yes. I'll send with __iowmb() instead of wmb(). On 02/05/2014 12:15 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Tuesday 04 February 2014 03:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >> >> Please do not top post. >> >>> It was so in v1. But it was decided to use explicit memory barriers, >>> because we're always sure the memory barriers are there and that >>> they're properly documented. Also in this case I don't need to add >>> keystone readl/writel relaxed function variants and to use mixed calls of >>> writel/writel_relaxed functions. >>> >>> See: >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg294941.html >> Fair enough, but we want a proper explanation for explicit barriers in >> the code and not in some random discussion of patch version X on some >> random mailing list. >> >> Aside of that it should be iowmb(), but I might miss something ... >> > Agree. __iowmb() seems to be more appropriate. > > Regards, > Santosh > -- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk