On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:43:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

Shouldn't we use "readback, sync" here? The following is quoted form t4240RM:
  To guarantee that the results of any sequence of writes to configuration
  registers are in effect, the final configuration register write should be
  immediately followed by a read of the same register, and that should be
  followed by a SYNC instruction. Then accesses can safely be made to memory
  regions affected by the configuration register write.

I agree that the sync before the readback is probably not necessary,
since transactions to the same address should already be ordered.

A sync after the readback helps if you're trying to order the readback
with subsequent memory accesses, though in that case wouldn't a sync
alone (no readback) be adequate?

No, we don't just want to order the subsequent memory access here.
The 'write, readback, sync' is the required sequence if we want to make
sure that the writing to CCSR register does really take effect.

 Though maybe not always -- see the
comment near the end of fsl_elbc_write_buf() in
drivers/mtd/nand_fsl_elbc.c.  I guess the readback does more than just
make sure the device has seen the write, ensuring that the device has
finished the transaction to the point of acting on another one.

Agree.

The data dependency plus isync sequence, which is done by the normal I/O
accessors used from C code, orders the readback versus all future
instructions (not just I/O).  The delay loop is not I/O.

According to the PowerISA, the sequence 'load, date dependency, isync' only
order the load accesses. So if we want to order all the storage access as well
as execution synchronization, we should choose sync here.

Thanks,
Kevin