Re: ia64 implementation of lib/iomap.c

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>]

On Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:12 am, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > What about the relaxed read then?  Should we have ioread_relaxed?
> > I thought we had agreed that it was easier to assume relaxed semantics
> > for ioread and add a dma_sync interface.
>
> I would expect that requires fixing PCI drivers that depend on it.
> Adding a dma_sync interface would probably make it easier to support
> non-coherent (DMA and CPU caches are not coherent) platforms.

Yep.  And it has to sync both consistent and non-consistent memory (flush 
might be a better term since coherence isn't really the issue).

> > Since PCI-X and PCI-Express have optional relaxed semantics that
> > might make sense...
>
> Jesse, you keep mixing up PCI-X Relaxed Ordering with readX() interface
> and the two are NOT (directly) related.
> The device driver can enable PCI-X Relaxed Ordering hints in general.
> But the IO > device controls "RO" hint use on individual bus transactions 
> it masters.

I don't believe you.  The spec makes it look like the I/O address *coming from 
the CPU* has to contain a bit to indicate relaxed ordering.  But as I've said 
before, we won't know until we see chipsets that support all aspects of this 
feature.

Jesse