On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 15:49 +0200, Michael BÃsch wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 15:45 +0200, Roland Vossen wrote: > > Hello guys, > > > > Greg, please drop this patch set. Rest of this email is FYI only. > > > > Michael: > > > > > Are you sure? __mips__ is automagically defined by GCC, if compiling > > > for MIPS. Maybe it should be converted to some CONFIG_... symbol. > > > But removal seems wrong. > > > > You are right. The majority of the removed #ifdef __mips__ code has to > > do with write flushing. To accomplish this, it performs a R_REG after a > > W_REG. I assumed that writeb() and friends guarantee ordering and write > > flushing, but after some reading I learned that this is not the case. > > > > I will rework the code and submit a new patch set. > > > > For some background info: this patch was a reaction on an email from > > John Linville to us. John wrote: > > > > <quote> > > I took a quick run through a pull of staging from today. I made a few > > notes, but a lot of them would seem to relate to the utils stuff you > > mention above. One general comment would be that there still seems > > to be a lot of MIPS-specific stuff buried in the code, in particular > > a lot of "#ifdef __mips__" stuff that if necessary should at least > > be hidden inside the W_REG macro. > > </quote> > > You should probably create a new macro W_REG_FLUSH or something like > that, which enforces ordering by reading back the register, if required. > That avoids ugly #ifdefs in the code. I don't see how write flushing would be MIPS specific anyway? It's a function of the bus (PCI), not the host architecture, no? johannes _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
