Re: [RFC] {read,write}s{b,w,l} or iobarrier_*()

From: Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@pobox.com)
Date: Thu Sep 26 2002 - 11:23:41 EST

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> So we have 2 solutions here (one of which I prefer, but I
> still want the debate open here):
>
> - Have all archs provide {read,write}s{b,w,l} functions.
> Those will hide all of the details of bytewapping & barriers
> from the drivers and can be used as-is for things like IDE
> MMIO iops.

I prefer this solution...

> - Have all archs provide iobarrier_* functions. Here, drivers
> would still have to re-implement the transfer loops with
> raw_{read,write}{b,w,l} and do proper use of iobarrier_*.

I have a tulip patch from Peter de Shivjer (sp?) that adds
iobarrier_rw() and I think it looks ugly as sin. I would much prefer
the first solution...

        Jeff

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:27 EST