On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:51:57 +0800, Daniel Kurtz
> wrote:
>> The POSTING_READ() calls were originally added to make sure the writes
>> were flushed before any timing delays and across loops.
>> However, the normal I915_READ() and I915_WRITE
The POSTING_READ() calls were originally added to make sure the writes
were flushed before any timing delays and across loops.
However, the normal I915_READ() and I915_WRITE() macros already call
readl() / writel(), which already have an explicit mb().
Now that the code has settled a bit, let's re
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:30:13PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:21:42 +0800, Daniel Kurtz
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Chris Wilson
> > wrote:
> > > We do need the write flush here (and set_data) as the next action is a
> > > udelay loop which is not per-
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:21:42 +0800, Daniel Kurtz
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
> > We do need the write flush here (and set_data) as the next action is a
> > udelay loop which is not per-se a mb.
>
> Now I am confused. I915_WRITE_NOTRACE() calls writel(), whi
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:51:57 +0800, Daniel Kurtz
wrote:
> The POSTING_READ() calls were originally added to make sure the writes
> were flushed before any timing delays and across loops.
> However, the normal I915_READ() and I915_WRITE() macros already call
> readl() / writel(), which already hav
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:51:57 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>> The POSTING_READ() calls were originally added to make sure the writes
>> were flushed before any timing delays and across loops.
>> However, the normal I915_READ() and I915_WRITE() m
The POSTING_READ() calls were originally added to make sure the writes
were flushed before any timing delays and across loops.
However, the normal I915_READ() and I915_WRITE() macros already call
readl() / writel(), which already have an explicit mb().
Now that the code has settled a bit, let's re
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:30:13PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:21:42 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Chris Wilson
> > wrote:
> > > We do need the write flush here (and set_data) as the next action is a
> > > udelay loop which is not per-se
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:21:42 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
> > We do need the write flush here (and set_data) as the next action is a
> > udelay loop which is not per-se a mb.
>
> Now I am confused. I915_WRITE_NOTRACE() calls writel(), whic
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:51:57 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> The POSTING_READ() calls were originally added to make sure the writes
> were flushed before any timing delays and across loops.
> However, the normal I915_READ() and I915_WRITE() macros already call
> readl() / writel(), which already have
10 matches
Mail list logo
