>The need for this has been discussed on this list a few times in the past. >Not having it is a bug to me for OMAP3. > >There shouldn't really be any performance side effects the way it is being >used. I agree, I did not notice any performance impact - we are using this setting for couple of months now without any problem. But there are some future compatibility concerns in below thread - it should be fine for OMAP3 though http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg02949.html > Let's go back to having a strongly ordered memory model. Please. On pre-ARMv6, updates to CPSR are guaranteed to take place in program order with a strongly-ordered memory access. This is still true on ARMv6/v7 for backward compatibility but the feature is deprecated and it might not be true for future architecture versions. At some point barriers might be needed. Regards, Pratheesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
