Hi Andy,
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:55:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Dong Aisheng <dongas86@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:37:41AM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 17.05.2017 06:39, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:15:08PM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
> >> >>> static u32 lpuart32_read(void __iomem *addr)
> >> >>> {
> >> >>> - return ioread32be(addr);
> >> >>> + return lpuart_is_be ? ioread32be(addr) : readl(addr);
> >> >>> }
> >> >>>
> >> >>> static void lpuart32_write(u32 val, void __iomem *addr)
> >> >>> {
> >> >>> - iowrite32be(val, addr);
> >> >>> + if (lpuart_is_be)
> >> >>> + iowrite32be(val, addr);
> >> >>> + else
> >> >>> + writel(val, addr);
> >> >>> }
> >> >>
> >> >> What if this is ever executed on big endian system?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, not catching the point...
> >> >
> >> > What issues will meet?
> >>
> >> Isn't writel() in host endian?
> >
> > On big endian systems, it is supposed to run iowrite32be.
>
> It looks like you substituting *bus* side with CPU *side* of communication.
>
> If you are talking about CPU side
> __raw_readl() / __raw_writel() will do the trick.
>
Yes, you're right.
To be more accurate, for bus side, if it's BE lpuart it should use
ioread32be/iowrite32be. If it's LE lpuart, it should use readl/writel.
And for CPU side, endian is transparent to driver users as they're
hided in io accessors implementation.
Regards
Dong Aisheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
