Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Mundt wrote:
This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross
posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place,
and to send notification messages with a pointer to the list archives to
the other
Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:11:02AM +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
Maybe we need another interface that does not do byteswapping but
provides stronger
Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
Maybe we need another interface that does not do byteswapping but
provides stronger ordering guarantees?
The byte swapping depends on the device/bus.
Of course. But isn't it reasonable to assume
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:13:23 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, this is the only interface I know that can do native-endian
accesses, so if you take it away, I'm gonna need an alternative
interface that doesn't do byteswapping.
Are you aware that these
On Fri, 30 May 2008 17:24:27 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 08:07 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
I think the drivers I've written have the necessary barriers (or dma
ops with implicit barriers) that they don't actually depend on any
DMA vs
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy to say that __raw is purely about ordering and make them
byteswap on powerpc tho (ie, make them little endian like the non-raw
counterpart).
That would break a lot of drivers.
How many actually use __raw_ * ?
I do --
