From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:52:31 +1000 Message-Id: <199908112352.JAA25021@tango.anu.edu.au> From: Paul Mackerras To: Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch CC: Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-fbdev@vuser.vu.union.edu, rth@cygnus.com In-reply-to: (message from Jes Sorensen on 11 Aug 1999 09:23:29 +0200) Subject: Re: [linux-fbdev] Re: readl() and friends and eieio on PPC Reply-to: Paul.Mackerras@cs.anu.edu.au References: <199908100100.LAA28784@tango.anu.edu.au> <199908110023.KAA23996@tango.anu.edu.au> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Jes Sorensen wrote: > I will have to disagree with you on this one, I consider the PPC > implementation to be very broken in this regard. "Very broken" - because drivers work and there is no measurable performance impact?? !!! ?? The only possible argument for *not* having the eieio in readl/writel is that it hurts performance (actually and measurably, not just potentially). Paul. [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]] [[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting. ]]