Hello.
Phil Sutter wrote:
No. The alternatives would be to use local variable as a loop counter
or, better yet, using readsb()/writesb() instead of the loops...
Wait! The original driver used 32-bit I/O to this register, not 8-bit --
so it looks like you have artificially slowed it down... :-/
Ok, so this should be clear now. I changed the code to use readl() and
writel() (the reads*() and writes*() versions sadly aren't useable as
they increment the target memory pointer) which worked fine.
So what? This is perfectly valid. Doesn't the current code increment it?
MBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
