From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylvain BERTRAND Subject: Re: endianness of rlc buffers (SI) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:43:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20131022114300.GA206@freedom> References: <20131022002659.GA246@freedom> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtpauth-vit.online.net (smtpauth-vit.online.net [88.190.253.76]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA24E5DBB for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Alex Deucher Cc: Maling list - DRI developers List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> commit 555b1b651acf44bf27ebbb04235d38a8fd2d58dc (drm-fixes-3.12) >> >> evergreen.c, SI code path, line 4045 and 4046 shouldn't be swapped? >> Should cpu_to_le32 be used? >> >> Basically, is the endianness enforcement right for the rlc BOs? >> Or is there a bit somewhere to switch the RLC to host >> endianness? Or the kmap is swapping dwords? > > The rlc buffers should be little endian. They will need to be swapped > on big endian systems. Right, then cpu_to_le32 should be used. Still for endianness, upper dword is written first (line 4045) and lower dword is written second (line 4046): Should the lower dword be written first then second the upper dword if we want little endian? Or maybe in that specific case, the rlc expect the upper dword first? -- Sylvain