From: Ladislav Michl <ladis@linux-mips.org>
To: Kevin Paul Herbert <kph@cisco.com>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: Removal of ____raw_readq() and ____raw_writeq() from asm-mips/io.h
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:40:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040128094032.GB900@kopretinka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1075255111.8744.4.camel@shakedown>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:58:31PM -0800, Kevin Paul Herbert 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.
Why was someone using these function at all? if you don't need locking
simply do *reg_addr = val;
> Personally, I think that it is very confusing to have so many similar
> macros with similar names and increasing numbers of underscores, so I
> don't really have a problem with this. I've modified
> arch/mips/sibyte/sb1250/time.c and arch/mips/sibyte/sb1250/irq.c to use
> the __ versions and have a few more instructions of overhead.
__ versions wasn't probably intended to use in C code. One should use
readq/writeq to get sane behaviour. These function was introduced to
hide architecture specific details. If you need something special, you
should introduce your own macros.
> My question is whether this removal was intended or not, or whether
> there are some other changes to the handlers in the sb1250-specific code
> that got dropped somewhere.
Yes it was. And I'm the one to blame for it ;)
> If the consensus is that the ____ versions really should perish for the
> sake of simplicity, I'll send my simple patches to the list to fix the
> sb1250 build.
Yes please.
ladis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-28 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-28 1:58 Removal of ____raw_readq() and ____raw_writeq() from asm-mips/io.h Kevin Paul Herbert
2004-01-28 9:40 ` Ladislav Michl [this message]
2004-01-28 10:49 ` Jes Sorensen
2004-01-28 15:08 ` Ladislav Michl
2004-01-28 16:01 ` Ralf Baechle
2004-01-29 10:35 ` Jes Sorensen
2004-01-28 14:30 ` Ralf Baechle
2004-01-28 15:00 ` Ralf Baechle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040128094032.GB900@kopretinka \
--to=ladis@linux-mips.org \
--cc=kph@cisco.com \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.