On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:52:12 CDT, scameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 01:15:50PM +0200, Tomas Henzl wrote: > > On 05/03/2011 09:58 PM, Stephen M. Cameron wrote: > > > From: Stephen M. Cameron <scameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > dev_dbg(&h->pdev->dev, "Sending %x, tag = %x\n", c->busaddr, > > > c->Header.Tag.lower); > > > writel(c->busaddr, h->vaddr + SA5_REQUEST_PORT_OFFSET); > > > + (void) readl(h->vaddr + SA5_REQUEST_PORT_OFFSET); > I just put it there to make it clear that it ignoring the return of readl is > done intentionally, not accidentally. If this goes against some coding convention, > whatever, I'm not super attached to the (void), but I did put it there on purpose, > and would have done it in cciss as well, had I thought of it at the time. This probably needs a comment like /* don't care - dummy read just to force write posting to chipset */ or similar. I'm assuming it's just functioning as a barrier-type flush of some sort?
Attachment:
pgpeKtpfeXb4O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
