I have noticed this.
And all register accesses in my patch are done through __raw_readl/__raw_writel.
2011/9/26, wu zhangjin <email@example.com>:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Shane McDonald
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-loongson1/regs-clk.h
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..7a09d6a
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-loongson1/regs-clk.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2011 Zhang, Keguang <email@example.com>
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Loongson1 Clock Register Definitions.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>>> modify it
>>>> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>>> + * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
>>>> + * option) any later version.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#ifndef __ASM_MACH_LOONGSON1_REGS_CLK_H
>>>> +#define __ASM_MACH_LOONGSON1_REGS_CLK_H
>>>> +#define LS1_CLK_REG(x) ((void __iomem *)(LOONGSON1_CLK_BASE +
>>> "volatile" keyword may be required for __iomem access, the same to the
>>> following similar usage.
>>> Considering a scene is(LS1_XXX_REG(X) doesn't really exist):
>>> LS1_XXX_REG(X) = 0; /* put cpu into idle and wait interrupt
>>> LS1_XXX_REG(X) = 7; /* recover the cpu frequency to the
>>> highest */
>>> If no "volatile" keyword indicated, the first line will be
>>> intelligently but wrongly removed by compiler.
>> No -- please see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt,
>> particularly the paragraph starting at line 49. This macro
>> is only being used as an argument to __raw_readl,
>> as it should be.
> Yeah, __raw_readl/writel() will use volatile to prevent it from
> optimization, thanks ;)
> "within the kernel, I/O memory accesses are always done through
> accessor functions;
> accessing I/O memory directly through pointers is frowned upon and
> does not work on all
> architectures. Those accessors are written to prevent unwanted
> - The above-mentioned accessor functions might use volatile on
> architectures where direct I/O memory access does work. Essentially,
> each accessor call becomes a little critical section on its own and
> ensures that the access happens as expected by the programmer.
> Patches to remove volatile variables are generally welcome - as long as
> they come with a justification which shows that the concurrency issues have
> been properly thought through.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Wu Zhangjin