On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:52:00PM +0100, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 09:32:13AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 07:29:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >> I suggest adding an iowmb after
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 09:32:13AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 07:29:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> >> This means that you don't have ordering guarantees between the two accesses
> >> outside of the CPU, p
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 07:29:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
>> This means that you don't have ordering guarantees between the two accesses
>> outside of the CPU, potentially giving you:
>>
>> spin_lock(&__io_lock);
>> spin_u
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 07:29:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 01:43:00PM +0100, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > Some SoC have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> > subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
> > thread-safe access of such regions
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 01:43:00PM +0100, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> Some SoC have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
> thread-safe access of such regions through a spinlock-protected API
> with clear-set semantics.
>
> Con
Sebastian,
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:44:10PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> On 08/12/13 17:46, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >> Indeed, syscon looks like a nice match for this use case.
> >> (although it still looks like an overkill to me).
> >>
> >> I've been trying to implement a working solu
On 08/12/13 17:46, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Indeed, syscon looks like a nice match for this use case.
(although it still looks like an overkill to me).
I've been trying to implement a working solution based in syscon but I'm
unable to overcome an issue.
The problem is that we need the register/re
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:55:53PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 07:43:08PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:38AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 04:49:28PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > > > > Some SoC
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 07:43:08PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:38AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 04:49:28PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > > > Some SoC have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> > > > > subsystems.
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:38AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 04:49:28PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > > Some SoC have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> > > > subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
> > > > thread-safe ac
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:38AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 04:49:28PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > Some SoC have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> > > subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
> > > thread-safe access of su
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 04:49:28PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > Some SoC have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> > subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
> > thread-safe access of such regions through a spinlock-protected API
> > with clear-set semantics.
> Some SoC have MMIO regions that are shared across orthogonal
> subsystems. This commit implements a possible solution for the
> thread-safe access of such regions through a spinlock-protected API
> with clear-set semantics.
>
> Concurrent access is protected with a single spinlock for the
> enti
13 matches
Mail list logo
