Stefan Roese wrote:
On Saturday 10 February 2007 08:23, Tolunay Orkun wrote:
We need to define SYNC as asm("sync;").
Or, to be sure, ""sync;isync"
OK.
I would not do this. Please let a "sync" instruction _not_ do a "isync" too. There will be times when you explicitly _don't_ what this.
Could you give a specific example.
There is also "eieio" and "msync" to consider though these usually map to former two (or vice versa).
Where is the problem? Which code includes include/ppc_asm.tmpl ? Why cannot we have the same definition once for C and again for assembler?
I agree, I think we can define the equivalent one in a C header file
#define SYNC asm("sync; isync;")
I am not sure if the assembler one is ever included in the C code.
Why not use
#define sync() __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory");
from include/asm-ppc/io.h? This seems to be exactly what we need.
I would rather prefer an uppercase SYNC since it is a macro but whatever style you guys choose is OK with me.
Please you and Wolfgang decide on this matter. I do not want to confuse Haiying with conflicting messages.
Tolunay