Hi! > > Less code duplication? It is immediately clear that driver including > > this is specific for brcm SoCs and would not try to work somewhere else? > > Yes maybe, there still does not feel like this deserves a shared header, > but as long as the generated code is the same, why not. Ok, it seems patch is not needed at all, after all? > > > >> As far as using _relaxed() this is absolutely correct because the bus > >> logic that connects the CPU to its on-chip registers is non re-ordering > >> non posted. That is true on the MIPS BE/LE and ARM when configured in LE > >> or BE. > > > > If that's right on particular SoC, then _relaxed and normal versions > > should be same; drivers still need to use normal versions, because > > they may be running on different SoC...? > > readl() includes barriers and read_relaxed() does not, hence the > difference in the name. There is no need to pay the price of a barrier > when a) the bus architecture guarantees non re-ordering and posting and > that statement is true on all the SoCs where these peripherals are used, > and b) you have worked on fine tuning your drivers to get the most > performance out of them. Exactly. When bus architecture guarantees ... readl and read_relaxed can be the same. That knowledge should be in architecture code, not in drivers. (But it does not matter much when the drivers are architecture-specific). > Given these peripherals can only be used on CPUs/SoCs made by Broadcom, > any argument about portability to other SoCs is moot. Ok. Pavel -- http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
