On 02/05/2014 10:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
+ /* here we have to be sure the timer has been disabled */
Sigh. This is not a proper explanation for a barrier, really. You want
to explain what it serializes against what. i.e. you want to explain
why you are using the relaxed functions and avoid a separate non
relaxed variant in favour of an explicit barrier.
+ __iowmb();
The proper thing is to have an inline function key_stone_barrier() and
a full explanation of the issue in exactly that place instead of
handwaving comments here and there.
Thanks,
tglx
I can add new inline function like:
/**
* keystone_timer_barrier: write memory barrier
* use explicit barrier to avoid using readl/writel non relaxed function
* variants, because in our case relaxed variants hide the true places
* where barrier is needed.
*/
static inline void keystone_timer_barrier(void)
{
__iowmb();
}
and use it where it is needed.
Are you OK with it?
And I propose to leave comments under the barriers in order to be
able to understand why they are used.
--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
