From: Logan Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] iomap: introduce io{read|write}64_{lo_hi|hi_lo} Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:00:11 -0600 Message-ID: <65ca8848-3a99-bda8-5165-9453b70316fa@deltatee.com> References: <20170726231917.6073-1-logang@deltatee.com> <20170726231917.6073-4-logang@deltatee.com> <5c52d908-3b77-c5c6-99a7-1164d878ac95@deltatee.com> <3a4c9453-20be-8164-85eb-5ad4d596a299@deltatee.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-Arch , linux-ntb@googlegroups.com, linux-crypto , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , =?UTF-8?Q?Horia_Geant=c4=83?= , Stephen Bates , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Suresh Warrier , Nicholas Piggin To: Andy Shevchenko Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On 31/07/17 11:58 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> On 31/07/17 10:10 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> Some drivers (hardware) would like to have non-atomic MMIO accesses >>> when readq() defined >> >> Huh? But that's the whole point of the io64-nonatomic header. If a >> driver wants a specific non-atomic access they should just code two 32 >> bit accesses. > You mean to call them directly as lo_hi_XXX() or hi_lo_XXX() ? > Yes it would work. I suppose you could do that too but I really meant just using two io32 calls. That's the most explicit way to indicate you want a non-atomic access. Logan