On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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
Peter De Schrijver, I assume.
> iobarrier_rw() and I think it looks ugly as sin. I would much prefer
> the first solution...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.orgIn personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
- 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 - 22:00:30 EST