RFC on writel and writel_relaxed
benh at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Mar 29 02:13:16 AEDT 2018
On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 07:41 -0400, okaya at codeaurora.org wrote:
> Yes, we want to get there indeed. It is because of some arch not
> implementing writel properly. Maintainers want to play safe.
> That is why I asked if IA64 and other well known archs follow the
> strongly ordered rule at this moment like PPC and ARM.
> Or should we go and inform every arch about this before yanking wmb()?
> Maintainers are afraid of introducing a regression.
Let's fix all archs, it's way easier than fixing all drivers. Half of
the archs are unused or dead anyway.
> > The above code makes no sense, and just looks stupid to me. It also
> > generates pointlessly bad code on x86, so it's bad there too.
> > Linus
More information about the Linuxppc-dev