--- Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > Did you *read* the post? > > # The _only_ acceptable use of "volatile" is basically: > # > # - in _code_ (not data structures), where we might mark a place as making > # a special type of access. For example, in the PCI MMIO read functions, > # rather than use inline assembly to force the particular access (which > # would work equally well), we can force the pointer to a volatile type. > > That's *exactly* what the writel you quote above does!
OK but he speaks about special type of access, no ordering constraint. I don't think that MIPS cpu reorder memory access, but gcc can ! And I don't think that the use of 'volatile' can prevent it to do that. > To return to the point directly at hand - on MIPS architectures to date, > simply doing your memory access through a "volatile u32 *" is sufficient > to ensure that the IO hits the bus (assuming that your pointer points to > kseg1, not kseg0, or is otherwise uncached), because 'volatile' forces > gcc to generate a "sw" for each store, and all MIPS so far have been > designed so that multiple uncached writes to mmio locations do generate > multiple bus transactions. ok thanks for this, but once again, there's no ordering constraint garantuee. > > I'm not an architect, but I think it would be possible to build a MIPS > where this was not the case, and require additional contortions from > users. Such a MIPS would suck to program and would probably fail in the > marketplace, and there's no compelling benefit to doing so; ergo, I > would expect "volatile" to continue to be sufficient on MIPS. > I hope so...It's hard to find out an answer to such questions (maybe it's the case only for MIPS arch) although it's an important point. Thanks. Francis ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/