Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross
> > posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place,
> > and to send notification messages with a pointer to the list archives to
> > th
Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:11:02AM +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 May 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > > > Maybe we need another i
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
On Fri, 30 May 2008 17:24:27 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 08:07 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > I think the drivers I've written have the necessary barriers (or dma
> > ops with implicit barriers) that they do
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:13:23 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Currently, this is the only interface I know that can do native-endian
> > accesses, so if you take it away, I'm gonna need an alternative
> > interface that doesn't do byteswapping.
>
> Are you aware that
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm happy to say that __raw is purely about ordering and make them
> > > byteswap on powerpc tho (ie, make them little endian like the non-raw
> > > counterpart).
> >
> > That would break a lot of drivers.
>
> How many actually use __raw
