RFC on writel and writel_relaxed
benh at kernel.crashing.org
Wed Mar 28 21:01:27 AEDT 2018
On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 11:55 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > powerpc and ARM can't quite make them synchronous I think, but at least
> > they should have the same semantics as writel.
> One thing that ARM does IIRC is that it only guarantees to order writel() within
> one device, and the memory mapped PCI I/O space window almost certainly
> counts as a separate device to the CPU.
That sounds bogus.
> In the absence of an enforced global synchronization during an I/O port
> access, that means writel() and outb() can be reordered before they arrive
> at a device in theory. Again, this rarely matters in practice, but I think it
> makes sense to document the less strict behavior here, given that we have
> common hardware that can't provide x86 compatible semantics.
Can't you put some kind of super heavy handed barrier in inX/outX ?
These things are never going to be performance sensitive anyway...
More information about the Linuxppc-dev