From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: RFC on writel and writel_relaxed
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:42:31 +1100
Message-ID: <1522104151.7364.23.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
References: <1521854626.16434.359.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <58ce5b83f40f4775bec1be8db66adb0d@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20180326165425.GA15554@ziepe.ca>
 <CAK8P3a1zeMyj+Z-y4ER4moY6Zip9EWNOinf+VnboGOrgiwbBZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180326202545.GB15554@ziepe.ca>
 <CAK8P3a3fc43ZcW626hmsd3DVcLw7hGkdUMxp7s4Rn3mdkziwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180326210951.GD15554@ziepe.ca>
 <CAK8P3a2UU1xAM0NLo7Q4-Xgo1SzY3De1uqpFudr+2ZW7nHEPmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ebb36fd4-62e2-394a-219f-686c45a6dc75@codeaurora.org>
 <1522101717.7364.14.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <20180326222756.GJ15554@ziepe.ca>
 <1522103771.7364.20.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org>
In-Reply-To: <1522103771.7364.20.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: "Paul E.
 McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>, Oliver <oohall@gmail.com>, Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>, "open
 list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 09:36 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I don't kow, it used to be the case, at least that's what drove us to
> define things the way we did.
> 
> Maybe things changed, but if that's the case, nobody knows for sure,
> and we probably want to get Linus POV on the matter.
> 
> I know I still write drivers that do not add a wmb in that case because
> I expect things to work without it.
> 
> If that has changed, we probably can relax some of the barriers in our
> implementations of writel on a number of architectures, but not before
> auditing a bunch more drivers to make sure they have the write wmb()'s

Note also that this was the entire point behind the definition of
the _relaxed() accessors, to lift that specific ordering guarantee.

If you now says that memory + writel requires a wmb() in between
then you made writel be identical to writel_relaxed.

You might notice that Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst makes no
mention of wmb() at all.

Cheers,
Ben.