On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:11:50PM -0500, Dan Malek wrote: > Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > >I don't see where a "volatile" gets dropped in any really significant > >way. > > No, it doesn't. The function logically does exactly the same thing, > so I don't understand why these changes were necessary. :-) > > The original code simply accessed the 'phy_status' in the data structure > as a volatile object. The modification from Wolfgang makes any data > structure access volatile, and then updates the 'phy_status' only once > at the end. > > If it makes something work better for Wolfgang, that's fine :-). To me, > it seems to be covering up some other timing problem since the only > thing different is how many times a particular memory location is accessed.
Would the patch, along with a comment about this potentially covering up HW timing issues (since this seems to have 'fixed' a problem on a certain HW config) be OK with everyone? -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
