[PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: Introduce atomic MMIO modify

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 02:02:53PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 01:58:19PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:49:43PM +0000, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:00:25PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:49:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:41:35AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +void atomic_io_modify_relaxed(void __iomem *reg, u32 mask, u32 set)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > +	u32 value;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&__io_lock, flags);
> > > > > > +	value = readl_relaxed(reg) & ~mask;
> > > > > > +	value |= (set & mask);
> > > > > > +	writel_relaxed(value, reg);
> > > > > > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&__io_lock, flags);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic_io_modify_relaxed);
> > > > > 
> > > > > This looks quite generic - why is it in architecture specific code?
> > > > 
> > > > because the _relaxed IO operators don't exist on other architectures, and
> > > > there's been some discussion around whether they should with no conclusions
> > > > being reached.
> > > 
> > > Exactly.
> > > 
> > > Will? Catalin? Any comments on this?
> > 
> > Yes: BenH and I managed to come up with an agreement on the relaxed I/O
> > accessors during kernel summit which I need to write up and send out again.
> > This would allow for a generic definition of the accessors, then this could
> > potentially be done in core code.
> 
> Do you prefer this series to wait then?

It'd be pretty unfair of me to insist that you wait; particularly when
there's bound to be further discussion once I get a proposal out. I guess
all I can ask is that you guys try to move this into core code once we have
standard definitions for the relaxed accessors.

Is that reasonable?

Will