> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 6:01 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 06:44:57 +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > The cited commit describes that when using writel(), explcit wmb() is
> > not needed. wmb() is an expensive barrier. writel() uses the needed
> > platform specific barrier instead of expensive wmb().
> >
> > Hence update the example to be more accurate that matches the current
> > implementation.
> >
> > commit 5846581e3563 ("locking/memory-barriers.txt: Fix broken DMA vs.
> > MMIO ordering example")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > changelog:
> > v2->v3:
> > - removed redundant description for writeX()
> > - updated text for alignment and smaller change lines
> > - updated commit log with blank line before signed-off-by line
> > v1->v2:
> > - Further improved description of writel() example
> > - changed commit subject from 'usage' to 'example'
> > v0->v1:
> > - Corrected to mention I/O barrier instead of dma_wmb().
> > - removed numbered references in commit log
> > - corrected typo 'explcit' to 'explicit' in commit log
> > ---
> > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > index 832b5d36e279..8952fd86c6e6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > @@ -1927,10 +1927,11 @@ There are some more advanced barrier
> functions:
> > before we read the data from the descriptor, and the dma_wmb()
> allows
> > us to guarantee the data is written to the descriptor before the device
> > can see it now has ownership. The dma_mb() implies both a
> dma_rmb() and
> > - a dma_wmb(). Note that, when using writel(), a prior wmb() is not
> needed
> > + a dma_wmb(). Note that, when using writel(), a prior barrier is
> > + not needed
> > to guarantee that the cache coherent memory writes have completed
> before
> > writing to the MMIO region. The cheaper writel_relaxed() does not
> provide
> > - this guarantee and must not be used here.
> > + this guarantee and must not be used here. Hence, writeX() is always
> > + preferred.
> So I assumed that this last sentence would be removed altogether.
> Can you explain the intention of adding it?
>
Just to highlight to developers to use of writeX() over _relaxed() variant.
But I think it redundant given above explanation of non-guarantee.
> IMHO, "preferred" doesn't mean anything in this document.
Dropping the last sentence in v4.
Thanks
