On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 10:02:48AM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > Marc Singer wrote: > >I've got a patch that adds OHCI support for a new SoC. I'd say it is > >all good except that it requires a work-around for accessing OHCI > >registers. The code needs to hijack readl() so that it can perform > >the read twice. > > > >What it does is define OHCI_readl() and then replace uses of readl() > >with that macro. For all other implementations the OHCI_readl() call > >translates to readl (). I did it this way so that there would be no > >doubt that OHCI_readl () might not be the standard macro. > > > >The questions are these. Is the applied method acceptable? Is there > >another way you'd prefer? > > If that's the chip bug, then wrapping readl() is necessary. Can you > rename to ohci_readl() (no Mixed_CASE_sYmbols!)
Sure. Not everyone appears to agree on this one. Some drivers use mixed case and some do not. > and move that to the end of ohci.h? Also: the comments assuming PCI > should go; so should the dbg() macros (use pr_debug or ohci_dbg); > didn't apply on 2.6.5-mm. This doesn't make sense to me. Can you try again? > I like the way this uses platform_bus instead of a chip-specific bus. > In fact, only the clock start/stop looks particularly specific to > the LH7A404 -- so far! That's true. It makes me wonder if it might be worth it to factor out some of this code. For example, we could declare some of it as generic_ and then refer to it with small wrappers that don't incure any code overhead. > > - Dave > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
