Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-25 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Sunday 25 October 2015, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 10/22/2015 10:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>> The two should really do the same thing: iowrite32() is just a static > >>> inline > >>> calling writel() on both ARM32 and ARM64. On which kernel version did you > >>> observe the difference?

Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-25 Thread Marc Kleine-Budde
On 10/22/2015 10:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> The two should really do the same thing: iowrite32() is just a static inline >>> calling writel() on both ARM32 and ARM64. On which kernel version did you >>> observe the difference? It's possible that an older version used >>> CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP,

Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-22 Thread Michal Simek
On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:34:53 Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote: >>> On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote: The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so readl/writel is actually the right t

Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-22 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 22 October 2015 08:34:53 Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote: > > On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote: > > > The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so > > > readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO. > > > During the validation

Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-22 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:21:58 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 10/22/2015 10:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote: > >> The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], > >> so readl/writel is actually the right thing to do,

RE: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-22 Thread Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
ichal Simek; Soren Brinkmann; Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux- > c...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of > ioread/iowrite > > On 10/22/2015 10:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >

RE: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-22 Thread Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
ichal Simek; Soren Brinkmann; Appana Durga > Kedareswara Rao; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux- > c...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of > ioread/iowrite > > On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedaresw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-22 Thread Marc Kleine-Budde
On 10/22/2015 10:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote: >> The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], >> so readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO. >> During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit proc

Re: [PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-22 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 22 October 2015 10:16:02 Kedareswara rao Appana wrote: > The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], > so readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO. > During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit processor > while sending lot of packets observed that

[PATCH 1/2] can: xilinx: use readl/writel instead of ioread/iowrite

2015-10-21 Thread Kedareswara rao Appana
The driver only supports memory-mapped I/O [by ioremap()], so readl/writel is actually the right thing to do, IMO. During the validation of this driver or IP on ARM 64-bit processor while sending lot of packets observed that the tx packet drop with iowrite Putting the barriers for each tx fifo regi