On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:28:28 -0600 Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com> wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote: > >> You told me that since I'm doing a read following a write to uncached > >> memory, > >> > that I don't need a sync. > > No, I was talking about a write followed by a read, to the same location. > > That's what I said. Read following write == write followed by read. Sorry, misread. The sync I was concerned about wasn't between that write and the following read, but between the read and whatever comes after the read. > > out_8 should be fixed to behave like the other accessors. > > Ok, but I'm not using any of the I/O accessors, so this doesn't affect me. Yes you are, in set_mux_to_diu(). But it's actually setbits_8(), which will do an in_8() first, which has synchronization, so it should be OK. > I just need to make sure that the read is executed after the write, and that > the > read completes before I continue. Right. It was that last bit I was talking about. > So I should I put an isync between the write and the read, Not necessary since they're the same address, and wouldn't help if they weren't (you'd want sync or mbar 1 in that case, not isync). > and a sync after the read? If you were to immediately follow it with out_8 as currently defined, yes. But setbits_8 should be OK. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot