RFC on writel and writel_relaxed

Arnd Bergmann arnd at arndb.de
Wed Mar 28 18:11:10 AEDT 2018

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 06:53 +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 20:43 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>> That's why in/out were *so* slow, and why nobody uses them any more
>> (well, the address size limitations and the lack of any remapping of
>> the address obviously also are a reason).
> All true indeed, though a lot of other archs never quite made them
> fully synchronous, which was another can of worms ... oh well.

Many architectures have no way of providing PCI compliant semantics
for outb, as their instruction set and/or bus interconnect lacks a
method of waiting for completion of an outb.

In practice, it doesn't seem to matter for any of the devices one would
encounter these days: very few use I/O space, and those that do don't
actually rely on the strict ordering. Some architectures (in particular
s390, but I remember seeing the same thing elsewhere) explicitly
disallow I/O space access on PCI because of this. On ARM, the typical
PCI implementations have other problems that are worse than this
one, so most drivers are fine with the almost-working semantics.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list