Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2014 00:35:59 +0200 | From | Ivan Khoronzhuk <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] clocksource: timer-keystone: introduce clocksource driver for Keystone |
| |
Yes. I'll send with __iowmb() instead of wmb().
On 02/05/2014 12:15 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Tuesday 04 February 2014 03:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >> >> Please do not top post. >> >>> It was so in v1. But it was decided to use explicit memory barriers, >>> because we're always sure the memory barriers are there and that >>> they're properly documented. Also in this case I don't need to add >>> keystone readl/writel relaxed function variants and to use mixed calls of >>> writel/writel_relaxed functions. >>> >>> See: >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg294941.html >> Fair enough, but we want a proper explanation for explicit barriers in >> the code and not in some random discussion of patch version X on some >> random mailing list. >> >> Aside of that it should be iowmb(), but I might miss something ... >> > Agree. __iowmb() seems to be more appropriate. > > Regards, > Santosh >
-- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk
| |