On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:57:05AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> > Even if originally intended for something else, like Matt says, wouldn't it
> > be easier to just define two new flags for it like
> >
> > BUS_SPACE_BARRIER_WB
> > BUS_SPACE_BARRIER_WBINV
> >
> > and leave the rest of the API untouched?
>
> I thought about that. My concern was if some port added those to the MD
> defintions but didn't update all the bus_space implementations
> bus_space_barrier wouldn't do anything and you wouldn't know.
He could as well add a bus_space_sync() that does nothing.
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
