On 8/21/06, Wade Maxfield <wmaxfield at gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/21/06, Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca > wrote: > > On 8/21/06, Wade Maxfield <wmaxfield at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > I'm assuming inb() outb(), inw() outw()?? I've been googling and have > > > come up short with info that makes sense. It is almost all x86 centric. > > > > in_8, in_be16, in_be32, out_8, out_be16, out_be32 for big-endian > > device registers > > in_8, in_le16, in_le32, out_8, out_le16, out_le32 for little endian > > device registers > > > -->Interesting. Do these functions do 'eieio' (Email, Internet, Electronic > Information Officer functions (southpark cartoon), err, or Enforce In-Order > Execution of Input/Output) for me, or do I have to do that? I'm still > confused as to that Old MacDonald function. The in functions do isync The out functions do eieio > > > > heh, yes you can; but if your writing new code why not use good > > practice from the start? :) > > > --> Ok, you win. How about ioread8() or inb() also? Are they not coded in > PPC correctly? Or is the in_8() more modern? read include/asm/io.h. All the IO routines are defined there. read[bwl] and write[bwl] are just macros to in_* out_*, as are inb, outb, etc. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely at secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195
