Paul> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote:
>> But the whole discussion started as a _byte_ order discussion. And
>> I still do not agree with _any_ of those arguments. I will not call
>> it "writel_na()", because I still do not agree at all with the
>> concept of making the IO thing byte-order-dependent.
Paul> OK.
Paul> What I think would be useful is to have an insl_bytes as well as
Paul> insl (and outsl_bytes, insw_bytes, outsw_bytes). The idea of
Paul> insl_bytes is that a driver uses it when it is actually
Paul> inputting an array of bytes as opposed to an array of 32-bit
Paul> quantities, but doing it 4 bytes per access.
I am not sure I understand this right, are you referring to I/O port
accesses like ISA/PCI I/O as opposed to shared memory mappings?
If this is the case I don't see the value of this as I am still to see
hardware that takes byte swapping into account when accessed via I/O
ports.
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/