On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:49:58AM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Ladislav" == Ladislav Michl <email@example.com> writes:
> Ladislav> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:58:31PM -0800, Kevin Paul Herbert
> Ladislav> wrote:
> >> In edit 1.68, the non-interrupt locking versions of
> >> raw_readq()/raw_writeq() were removed, in favor of locking
> >> ones. While this makes sense in general, it breaks the compilation
> >> of the sb1250 which uses the non-locking versions (____raw_readq()
> >> and ____raw_writeq()) in interrupt handlers.
> Ladislav> Why was someone using these function at all? if you don't
> Ladislav> need locking simply do *reg_addr = val;
> If you are accessing memory mapped registers or memory on a PCI
> device, ie. likely on a 1250, you *must* use the readX/__raw_readX
> macros. Anybody just doing *reg = val on a PCI device should be
> banned from writing code for life!
eh? I said nothing about PCI device. These ____raw_writeq are
used in board specific code. Anyway, defining struct sb_registers
and ioremaping it would be nice solution (I didn't read code too
carefully, so maybye not in this particular case where registers
are 64bit width, but I definitely prefer it in board specific code
over read[bwl]/write[bwl]). Also readq/writeq seems mips specific,
so rants about portability doesn't apply.