[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ide: Add tx4939ide driver
From: Sergei Shtylyov <>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:02:09 +0400
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)
Hello, I wrote:

This doesn't look consistent (aside from the TX4939IDE_REG8/16 issue) -- mm_outsw_swap() calls cpu_to_le16() before writing 16-bit data but this code doesn't. So, either one of those should be wrong...

Thanks, this code should be wrong.  IDE_TFLAG_OUT_DATA is totally

  Hum, not necessarily...
If the data register is BE, this should work correctly, if I don't mistake (once you fix the data register's address).

Hmm... or ide_tf_load()/ide_tf_read() is broken for big endian MIPS ?
(and possibly SPARC etc.)

__ide_mm_writesw(port, &data, 1) should be used instead of writew()

Probably the code there relies on the writew() doing the necessary byte swapping -- the same as ata_{in|out}_data() must be reying on ins[wl]() and outs[wl]() to do that, as well as on __ide_mm_reads[wl]() and __ide_mm_writes[wl]() -- which boil down to reads[wl]() and writes[wl]() on MIPS. What's not clear to me is why in MIPS read[wlq]() vs reads[wlq](), write[wlq]() vs writes[wl], in[wlq]() vs ins[wlq](), and out[wlq]() vs outs[wlq]() are using the different byte swapping: the single form uses ioswab[wlq]() while the sting form uses __mem_ioswab[wlq]() -- and those are defined as one swapping bytes and the other not in incluse/asm-mips/mach-generic/mangle-port.h. Cananybody shed some light on this?

Oh, I think I understand: the "single" versions take/return the value in host endian but the "string" version must treat the data as a stream of bytes.

MBR, Sergei

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