Is volatile always verboten for FSL QE structures?

[Michael Barkowski]

Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
>> Michael Barkowski wrote:
>>> Just wondering - is there a case where using volatile for UCC
>>> parameter RAM for example will not work, or is the use of I/O
>>> accessors everywhere an attempt to be portable to other architectures?
>>
>> 'volatile' just doesn't really do what you think it should do.  The
>> PowerPC architecture is too complicated w.r.t. ordering of reads and
>> writes.  In other words, you can't trust it.
>>
>> No one should be using 'volatile' to access I/O registers.
> 
> See Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> 

I'm happy to adopt your interpretation of it, and I appreciate the explanation.

from Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt:
>   - The above-mentioned accessor functions might use volatile on
>     architectures where direct I/O memory access does work.  Essentially,
>     each accessor call becomes a little critical section on its own and
>     ensures that the access happens as expected by the programmer.

Part of it was that I wondered if this was one of those architectures.  I guess not.

-- 
Michael Barkowski
905-482-4577