On Mon, Oct 22, 2001, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > @@ -1796,7 +1796,7 @@
> > tmp = tmp->next;
> >
> > if (td->status & TD_CTRL_ACTIVE) {
> > - td->status |= TD_CTRL_IOC;
> > + set_bit(TD_CTRL_IOC_BIT, &td->status);
> > break;
> > }
> > }
>
> This is a very bad idea in my book because set_bit sets bits
> in an architecture specific way (from MSB or from LSB), and
> it is defined to act on longs, while td->status is u32.
> Of course, uhci is only used on x86, so all is fine here,
> and I would only demand this taken down if it was ohci.
> But a bad code all the same, fosters bad habits.
You can get PCI USB controllers with UHCI chips, so it could work on
Alpha's or PowerPC's.
But, you find almost all UHCI controllers on x86 machines. This fix is
necessary for x86 machines atleast.
I have a patch to fix endianess, but I'd like to test it first before
merging it in.
JE
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
