On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:01:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Maybe we should rather use the __raw_* variants in the cfi driver aswell > > which is the only user of the functions below. > > We can do that for the sake of compatibility with Linux. > > > For some reason I > > believed that the __raw_* variants also do little endian accesses which > > is wrong. > > I don't like the naming of the __raw_* variants very much as the > > underscores and 'raw' suggests that these are internal functions which > > one should rather not use, but in fact these are the correct functions > > in most SoC (non PCI) drivers. Anyway, since Linux has this functions we > > should use them aswell, everything else probably leads to more > > confusion. > > I don't know. > > I would rename: > __raw_* -> cpu_*() as they are just plain and simple accessors with > native endianness. > > readl() and friends -> le32_readl() etc. > The 'l' is somewhat redundant, the size is already determined by '32' > (and 16, 8). Maybe le32_read() or read_le32()? > > Your call. We can just limit this renaming to cpu_* -> __raw_*. > > > To be honest, I would like this stuff renamed in Linux as well. Perhaps > some day. I tend to take your patch as is. The cpu_* accessors have a clear meaning and don't conflict with anything in Linux, so why not just have them around. Anyway, I'll sleep over it before applying it. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
