linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH] TXx9 SPI controller driver

To: david-b@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH] TXx9 SPI controller driver
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:56:00 +0900 (JST)
Cc: spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, mlachwani@mvista.com
In-reply-to: <200706230909.52037.david-b@pacbell.net>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <200706221151.24959.david-b@pacbell.net> <20070624.004159.07644824.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <200706230909.52037.david-b@pacbell.net>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:09:51 -0700, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > And for mmiowb() issue, I put it just only I was not sure whether
> > gpio_set_value() guarantee I/O barrier.  Now I see i2c-gpio.c, etc. do
> > not have such barriers.  I will remove these barriers and fix platform
> > gpio codes.
> 
> I don't think this is a case where there'd be a benefit to
> allowing non-barriered implementations, and thus requiring
> all portable code to include platform-neutral I/O barriers.
> I don't know that such neutral primitives actually exist...
> 
> I'll update the GPIO docs to make that clear, unless you
> have some strong argument to the contrary.

No contrary argument.  Some guide to writers of GPIO implementations
about the I/O barriers should be appreciated.

---
Atsushi Nemoto

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>