From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:02:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: i2c-sh7760: Replase from ctrl_* to __raw_*
Message-Id: <20101026040203.GB16265@linux-sh.org>
List-Id: <linux-sh.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1287785220-5893-1-git-send-email-iwamatsu@nigauri.org> <20101025015835.GE2173@linux-sh.org> <20101025104718.GF21564@trinity.fluff.org> <20101025111324.GA16265@linux-sh.org> <20101025124211.GG21564@trinity.fluff.org> <AANLkTikh+h1nWHZCa29FQc1dw=z3ZhYEW8eSyFyS4C84@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikh+h1nWHZCa29FQc1dw=z3ZhYEW8eSyFyS4C84-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu-+mkmVskJBflAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-i2c-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sh-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 09:08:12AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> 2010/10/25 Ben Dooks <ben-i2c@fluff.org>:
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:13:25PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:47:18AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:58:35AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 07:07:00AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> >> > > > ctrl_* is deprecated. We should to use __raw_*.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu@nigauri.org>
> >> > >
> >> > > Applied, thanks.
> >> >
> >> > Hi, can you see my comments about the copy of this posted below
> >> > about ioremap() and use or __raw accessors?
> >> >
> >> No? At least it never made it to the list. Do you have a pointer handy?
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-i2c&m8797023230600&w=2
> >
> 
> Sorry, this is my mistake.
> 
> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:37:46PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> >> ctrl_* is deprecated. We should to use __raw_*.
> >
> >> Given iobase is ioremap() returned, there should be an explicit reason
> >> for using __raw_xxx() instead of read/writel().
> 
Based on what, exactly? The CPU in question is quite content with the
weak ordering provided by __raw_xxx(), anything more is unecessary.