On 12/01/2015 12:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 01 December 2015 11:14:57 Stanimir Varbanov wrote: >> + if (srcs & BAM_IRQ) { >> clr_mask = readl_relaxed(bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_STTS)); >> >> - /* don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM registers */ >> - mb(); >> + /* >> + * don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM >> + * registers >> + */ >> + mb(); >> >> - writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR)); >> + writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR)); >> + } >> > > I think the comment here should be moved: change the writel_relaxed() > to writel(), which already includes the appropriate barriers, and If we agree with such a change it should be subject to another patch. > add a comment at the readl_relaxed() to explain why it doesn't need > a barrier. Infact I'm not sure that readl_relaxed(BAM_IRQ_STTS) does not need barrier. If I read the code above correctly the mb() should guarantee that all load and store operations before it are happened before the write to BAM_IRQ_CLR register, and on the other hand if we replace writel_relaxed with writel, the writel has wmb() which guarantees only store operations. Did I miss something? -- regards, Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html