Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:59:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:59:21 -0500 Received: from khan.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.139]:63206 "EHLO khan.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:59:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:58:39 +0100 From: David Weinehall To: Kent E Yoder Cc: Alan Cox , Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IBM Lanstreamer bugfixes Message-ID: <20020130205839.S1735@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from yoder1@us.ibm.com on Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:27:29PM -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:27:29PM -0600, Kent E Yoder wrote: > I think the delays in the driver *were* just working around PCI posting > effects. I tested by removing all the delays and instead putting > something like: > writew(val, addr); > (void) read(addr); > > instead, to flush the PCI cache. Things seem to be happy. > > Is this the best way to make sure the PCI cache is flushed for writes that > need to happen immediately? I don't see many other drivers doing it... Wouldn't creating a flush_and_writew() or similar be an idea here? /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/