On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:10:13PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 10/31/23 10:44, Yann Sionneau wrote: > > > > Le 31/10/2023 à 01:12, Jan Bottorff a écrit : > > > On 10/26/2023 4:18 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > So, someone wants to come up with a patch to move to non-relaxed io > > > > accessors? > > > > > > > Is the current thinking to just make writes to DW_IC_INTR_MASK use > > > the non-relaxed variant or something more broad? > > > > > > From a safest functioning viewpoint, we talked about making all > > > accessors default to non-relaxed variants. A couple of pretty good > > > arguments from knowledgeable people favored this. I know there also > > > was some concerns about potential performance impact this might have > > > although the counter argument was this is a pretty low speed device > > > so some extra cpu cycles on register accesses were not likely to > > > degrade overall performance. > > > > > > I could make the patch if we have consensus (or maintainers > > > decision) on which way to go: 1) only writes to DW_IC_INTR_MASK are > > > non-relaxed, 2) make all read/write accessors use the non-relaxed > > > version. > > > > > > I'm personally in camp #2, safety first, performance fine tuning > > > later if needed. Latent missing barrier bugs are difficult and time > > > consuming to find. > > > > Fine with me, let's go for #2 :) > > > Also simplicity votes for #2. +1 for the option #2. Let's do it and be finally over with this patch.) -Serge(y)
