[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Removal of ____raw_readq() and ____raw_writeq() from asm-mips/io.h

To: Jes Sorensen <>
Subject: Re: Removal of ____raw_readq() and ____raw_writeq() from asm-mips/io.h
From: Ladislav Michl <>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:08:28 +0000
Cc: Kevin Paul Herbert <>,
In-reply-to: <>; from on Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:49:58AM -0500
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <1075255111.8744.4.camel@shakedown> <20040128094032.GB900@kopretinka> <>
User-agent: Mutt/
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:49:58AM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Ladislav" == Ladislav Michl <> 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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>