From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, dmo@osdl.org,
axboe@suse.de, phillips@arcor.de, _deepfire@mail.ru,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: DAC960 in 2.5.38, with new changes
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:53:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15759.32569.964762.776074@napali.hpl.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020923.134000.123546377.davem@redhat.com>
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:40:00 -0700 (PDT), "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> said:
>> From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:19:02 -0700
>> This looks like a porting-nightmare in the making. There's got to be a
>> better way to determine whether you need a writeq() vs. a writel().
> Or perhaps every platform should provide a writeq(), on 32-bit systems
> it may merely be implemented as two consequetive writel() calls.
True, but I was wondering whether driver writers will have an implicit
assumption on readX/writeX being atomic. I don't think anyone ever
promised that, but I suspect all existing implementations are indeed
atomic (it's true even for old Alphas which don't have sub-word
load/stores).
--david
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-23 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-23 19:04 DAC960 in 2.5.38, with new changes Dave Olien
2002-09-23 19:19 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 20:40 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 20:53 ` David Mosberger [this message]
2002-09-23 20:57 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 21:24 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 21:17 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 21:32 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 21:28 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 21:31 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 21:33 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 21:28 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-23 21:40 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 21:45 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-23 20:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 20:54 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-24 16:54 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 17:11 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 17:28 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 18:21 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 18:25 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 19:12 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 18:45 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-24 17:50 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-24 18:27 ` David Mosberger
2002-09-24 17:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-25 22:20 ` DAC960, documentation links Daniel Phillips
2002-09-25 22:23 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-26 0:02 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
2002-09-26 16:13 ` DAC960 in 2.5.38, with new changes Alan Cox
2002-09-24 17:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-25 21:42 ` davide.rossetti
2002-09-23 20:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 21:41 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-23 21:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-23 22:03 ` Dave Olien
2002-09-23 22:22 ` Daniel Phillips
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15759.32569.964762.776074@napali.hpl.hp.com \
--to=davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com \
--cc=_deepfire@mail.ru \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=dmo@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillips@arcor.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).