Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()

Will Deacon's on April 9, 2019 11:46 pm: > Hi Nick, > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 07:00:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Linus Torvalds's on April 6, 2019 1:50 am: >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote: >> >> >> >> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that

Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()

Hi Nick, On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 07:00:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Linus Torvalds's on April 6, 2019 1:50 am: > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote: > >> > >> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require > >> it, so there is no reason to call it

Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()

Linus Torvalds's on April 6, 2019 1:50 am: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote: >> >> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require >> it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was >> generated using coccinelle: >> >>

Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote: > > mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require > it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was > generated using coccinelle: > > @mmiowb@ > @@ > - mmiowb(); So I love the

[PATCH v2 17/21] drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()

mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was generated using coccinelle: @mmiowb@ @@ - mmiowb(); and invoked as: $ for d in drivers include/linux/qed sound; do \ spatch