Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 20:34 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

> Do you mean the io{read,write} functions? Funnily enough, they're already
> relaxed on ARM if you go by the semantics I've proposed. That implies we at
> least need some Documentation to that effect...
> 
> What do you do on ppc?

They are not supposed to be relaxed. If they are, you probably have a
whole lot of busted drivers :-)

They have the same semantics as readl/writel for memory and as inb/outb
for IO space, they just allow to hide the "type" (memory vs. IO) from
most of the driver code.

We probably need to create a set of _relaxed variants.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux