Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue

[Haavard Skinnemoen]

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > Maybe we need another interface that does not do byteswapping but
> > provides stronger ordering guarantees?
> 
> The byte swapping depends on the device/bus.

Of course. But isn't it reasonable to assume that a device integrated
on the same silicon as the CPU is connected to a somewhat sane bus
which doesn't require any byte swapping?

> So what happened to the old idea of putting the accessor function pointers
> in the device/bus structure?

Don't know. I think it sounds like overkill to replace a simple load or
store with an indirect function call.

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