On 10/3/2013 1:15 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
[snip]
Yeah, it doesn't help when both types of accesses show up when searching
for the ring, and accessors exist with both possible argument orderings.
Especially when a driver has custom accessors.
It's OK to use explicit synchronization rather than I/O accessors, if
you're careful to ensure that it's correct.
It looks like drivers/net/fec_mxc.c in U-Boot is an example that uses
I/O accessors on ring data, e.g.:
writew(length, &fec->tbd_base[fec->tbd_index].data_length);
Hi Scott,
I sent a v2 for this patch (the next 2 patches in the series are
not affected by this one):
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/280285/
In this version I dropped the macro usage and used I/O accessors for
the ring data, as discussed. This approach does not require the
explicit __beNN type for the BD fields, it also removes the need to
declare the BD structures as "volatile" and it's safer because in_be()/
out_be() enforce HW sync.
Thanks,
Claudiu
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
