From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752352AbcB2Jzf (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:55:35 -0500 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([217.72.192.75]:49212 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750855AbcB2Jzc (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:55:32 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Marek Szyprowski Cc: Joerg Roedel , Joerg Roedel , Kukjin Kim , Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: exynos: pointers are nto physical addresses Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:54:49 +0100 Message-ID: <26472865.zD5Ep58Exn@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <56D41087.60506@samsung.com> References: <1456735568-3886545-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <56D41087.60506@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:f9OtOEDiFiqWHjwlWxzaF/SNhcdImllK6kU7xoqZsDZd54mi21f 0NFLKr/Y59Bd4lc2BEGU/zLlbs8djW1f8sbasI0mdSR09+e3WMHrflcHmyJ/zZUa9qn6ynH vdvLiO0TJ99acLLMLDbt78r5kzRn1U12cWMoNSuNykEi9Ekr+nCk4aCwA8//HsdKW7EnJ78 MmQktYaTPqgaLNAktDq/Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:JrKlMxlC+Tw=:iYdN0xOmPds28yiTOK51Ux 5+0oTYx0FOaOEgh/FLHCWS1VfrTcb1qTvf4a24PxeFX0gMU5ErEIK3O8IaPgL6JoMDoeavm7Q K9/oheFM00H8mI84UlyQicBS/PhVR1Lf2JRt8w0x2KMb1PBM8b3jIQbwWAqD2bVX/uwzng+RZ 8iatlCuYeMZb5p99wVrO98QovlyaN4eHE+artONeh9a39YWUMXnmRS1N4mGrkGK/ECxMEwxvz Ta3AGfq7ji69hJOd9H6n3Tj3vLeP8YWDlZMrvqKFlmBeuI8EQ2YQZmtV37Wnw41JLpWzEIOJM av6rpLZ1TaEa6h896OvTxp35AwE6aoEey5QBveOGZXsfxz926IPRLi3LEdqkO0H5lAveA4TF9 48BVby7ZI714T0AL/UIo3SpJwXb/s2zvYBdyNN1BvFhCRKZyAyqydjaBS3bUUoMQ2XViCylFs 0T6NQaNrKMjTc5LZtMC9qyqLbaYJpUUkK4L79C/YYzmHv8LscWNDHIF95QHQ/TOogCk5Ae3Ss lH1Hn3kz8kdGse+pbsBjgX+Ri3+cO8kWQvLpTCiqUo4UI1Z9FR1KeQPlrVeamL09IeEW21D0d xKgP0wvK49DdsS31GOWdh2IiLIbD35ZXCmK5tlIG+13Xu98pFjMPvKN7aT4tiDk4zQliZOGeU UcIGsxQumSNke2qQ9BkohmOUqCFpUsLNt79K94Y52xJ33zhMHrVr58gcDMjCI7gKNET3JTW5G 7Fg7deIaq4EG//y6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 29 February 2016 10:33:59 Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > --- > > I also see that some incorrect __raw_writel() calls have crept in > > around the same time, which breaks running big-endian kernels when > > this driver is loaded. > > > > Please fix and that that as well. > > Okay, so in the driver code all __raw_writel should be replaced by > writel(), right? Yes, writel() is always the safe choice if you don't know what to use. __raw_writel() should be considered an implementation detail and not used in drivers at all. There is also writel_relaxed(), which is faster than writel() because it leaves out all the barriers (as __raw_writel does too), and you can sometimes use that in the fast path if you can prove that no barriers are needed. Arnd