Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 that a device integrated on the same silicon as the CPU is connected to a somewhat sane bus which doesn't require any byte swapping? > So what happened to the old idea of putting the accessor function pointers > in the device/bus structure? Don't know. I think it sounds like overkill to replace a simple load or store with an indirect function call. Haavard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
