RFC on writel and writel_relaxed
benh at kernel.crashing.org
Wed Mar 28 18:42:59 AEDT 2018
On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 09:11 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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.
Yup, that includes powerpc. Note that since POWER8 we don't even
genetate IO space anymore :-)
> 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