On 17:11 Wed 15 Oct , Olav Morken wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:07, Ben Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Olav, > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Olav Morken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > What other architectures have you tried this on? > >> > >> None, as we don't have any other boards to test on. I do however believe > >> that this change should have no side-effects. If any architectures > >> relied on this function working as some sort of memory/io barrier, they > >> would have problems with other functions such as ArpRequest, which > >> doesn't have anything that will work as a memory/io barrier before the > >> eth_send function. > >> > >> Of course, I could be wrong. I would certainly not suggest including > >> this change without some more testing. > >> > >> The bug which causes this problem is in avr32-gcc, which makes > >> assumptions about the alignement of IP_t when using volatile, and this > >> change shouldn't be necessary once that bug is fixed. Until that bug > >> is fixed, this change is needed for anyone trying to run U-Boot on > >> this microcontroller. > > > > I don't mean to be a pain, it's just that this code is shared by everything, > > so we need to be really careful. I agree with Haavard that the volatile > > keyword is probably used much more than it should be in the networking > > library. > > > > I'll pull this into the net/testing branch in the next couple of days, and > > hopefully we'll get some volunteers to try it out on different > > architectures. > > That is great. > > FWIW: I have now tested it in qemu_mips, where it appears to work. (Had > to revert "qemu-mips.h: Add CFI support" before I could test it.) why?
Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
