Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

[Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:12 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 10:09 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > Well, sure, I'm assuming that the driver is responsible for checking
> > that the device and its bus interface support an MMIO of the requested
> > width.
> >
> > But the architecture code must be responsible for reporting whether the
> > host supports it, right?
> >
> 
> No, the architecture code *can't*.

So, let me check that I understand this right:
- To support 32-bit architectures, a driver should include one of two
different definitions of readq/writeq depending on which order the
device needs to receive 32-bit operations.
- On 64-bit architectures (or at least x86_64), the system might split
up readq/writeq into 32-bit operations in unspecified order, and the
driver can't control this.

If this is right, how can it be safe to use readq/writeq at all?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html