On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 07:44:51PM +0000, Casey Leedom wrote:
> | From: Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:28 AM
> |
> | | From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | | Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:52 AM
> | |
> | | Isn't this a PowerPC problem? Why penalize other architectures?
> |
> | I worry it breaks PPC.
>
> And all other architectures. Aparraently there isn't a formal API
> description for writel_relaxed() and Co., nor __raw_writel(), etc.
We have this:
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt lines 2600-2677/3136 85%
(*) readX_relaxed(), writeX_relaxed()
These are similar to readX() and writeX(), but provide weaker memory
ordering guarantees. Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
respect to normal memory accesses (e.g. DMA buffers) nor do they guarantee
ordering with respect to LOCK or UNLOCK operations. If the latter is
required, an mmiowb() barrier can be used. Note that relaxed accesses to
the same peripheral are guaranteed to be ordered with respect to each
other.
Which basically says they are the same as writel() except they are not
required to be contained by a spinlock, which is the expensive thing
ARM and PPC are doing with the barriers in writel()
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
