On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Lezcano
[off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Linus,
While looking at the drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c file I noticed:
?595 ? ? ? ? /* Grab the HW semaphore. */
?596 ? ? ? ? while ((readl(PRCM_SEM) & PRCM_SEM_PRCM_SEM) != 0)
?597 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpu_relax();
I was wondering why is cpu_relax needed here as readl does a memory barrier
? I thought the cpu_relax function was related to the x86 to consume less
power with an optimization of the "rep nop" loops or/and do a memory
barrier.
Should a busy-loop be always with cpu_relax ?
Last time we discussed it ar LAKML I think we came to the conclusion
that while cpu_relax() has very little semantic meaning on ARM, it
is still nice to have from a readability and maintenance point of view,
since it is pretty clear what we're trying to do.
But I will stand corrected...
Yours,
Linus Walleij
On 02/01/2012 09:17 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Lezcano
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi Linus,
While looking at the drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c file I noticed:
595 /* Grab the HW semaphore. */
596 while ((readl(PRCM_SEM)& PRCM_SEM_PRCM_SEM) != 0)
597 cpu_relax();
I was wondering why is cpu_relax needed here as readl does a memory barrier
? I thought the cpu_relax function was related to the x86 to consume less
power with an optimization of the "rep nop" loops or/and do a memory
barrier.
Should a busy-loop be always with cpu_relax ?
Last time we discussed it ar LAKML I think we came to the conclusion
that while cpu_relax() has very little semantic meaning on ARM, it
is still nice to have from a readability and maintenance point of view,
since it is pretty clear what we're trying to do.
Ok, thanks Linus.
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog