From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.cern.ch (smtp1.cern.ch [137.138.128.38]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1EF482A for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:48:31 -0600 (MDT) Sender: Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] FB cleanups References: <20010411211337.C26010@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20010411213458.D26010@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20010411235104.A19570@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20010412003606.A20002@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> From: Jes Sorensen Date: 13 Apr 2001 18:48:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: Matthew Wilcox's message of "Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:36:06 +0100" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-ID: >>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox writes: Matthew> On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 12:56:01AM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> Then Linus changed his mind. You are still *only* supposed to use >> readb/writeb on PCI (and possible ISA) on PCI like devices. Matthew> I've heard this before. But no-one ever came up with an Matthew> example of what _was_ `PCI-like'. Since right now our writeb Matthew> is #defined to gsc_writeb, that leads me to believe GSC is Matthew> sufficiently PCI-like. Well time to go study the bus behaviors and compare them then. How does gsc behave wrt cache coherency, read-around-write, write ordering etc etc. Using writeb on a gsc is misleading everybody else who reads the code into believing that it's a PCI device. Jes