From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1RA3wE-0006q6-0s for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:05:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RA3wB-0006q0-Nv for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:05:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RA3w9-0007Xr-6q for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:05:23 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:45317) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RA3w9-0007Xa-1u for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:05:21 -0400 Received: by bkbzs2 with SMTP id zs2so3636322bkb.0 for ; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 11:05:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=XMvQF+aWf3u692AxN9Gg6gIv3lXwsbPodo3o02pd8ds=; b=jdwLioR2P8HSYDVX0kxxCq9fd538WqGeBkPz4PrMrvH6ALvzTK4+cbjeVrOugyGxFW BbsotpdjAue+ls6x9n4iLXQwDG3loMYJQ3dNKdyHLCrCgG+LqhM7O6oT5OcOBV2yEa28 o20nwqXJKtWNkcmTMcsL7Bck8MVHadZeBm2Ow= Received: by 10.223.58.198 with SMTP id i6mr16873303fah.91.1317492319945; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian.x201.phnet (gprs23.swisscom-mobile.ch. [193.247.250.23]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5sm12564505fac.25.2011.10.01.11.05.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 01 Oct 2011 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E875653.40902@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:05:07 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grub-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] EHCI driver - USB 2.0 support References: <1309029199.2532.35.camel@pracovna> <201106252151.12483.szymon@janc.net.pl> <1309120668.3268.153.camel@pracovna> <4E28A149.4010008@gmail.com> <1314463338.2555.56.camel@pracovna> <4E85E22C.2010804@gmail.com> <1317456941.3063.76.camel@pracovna> In-Reply-To: <1317456941.3063.76.camel@pracovna> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig404A177F1AEF554B0EF2C8AF" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.214.41 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 18:05:24 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig404A177F1AEF554B0EF2C8AF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01.10.2011 10:15, Ale=C5=A1 Nesrsta wrote: > Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko p=C3=AD=C5=A1e v P=C3=A1 30.= 09. 2011 v 17:37 > +0200: >> That must be a too long interval of writing e-mail. I started it a mon= th >> ago, then interrupted and now finishing it > No problem, I have often very, very long "response time" too... > (sometimes infinite...) :-) > > According to all comments/changes below - in fact I agree with all, but= > I will wait with changes in code until You try EHCI on fuloong or > another machine(s), as there could be some additional mistakes/changes > in code after test - or feel totally free to make Your own corrected > starting version of this driver code for any experimental branch or > trunk. > Ok, I'll do it since EHCI is important. I also feel like there is no need to maroon it in experimental > Currently I have only note to discussed "packed" attribute "problem": > I have no problem to delete it - especially if it is usual programmer > praxis in such cases (or You can do it instead of me without my > agreement - no problem, because You are the maintainer of whole code an= d > You are making code rules... :-) ). > Don't consider me some kind of dictator, I just want some coherency in design, rather than having incoherent problems. > Only to clarify my point of view: > > 1. I think there is difference between structures and arrays, compiler > can (must) use different alignment for each case: > For array members - there it must be according to type of array, resp. > length of array member > For structure members (and possibly whole structure alignment) - there > can be used any alignment, I see no reason why should be structure > member alignment generally restricted in some way even if the whole > structure is then used as array member > > 2. AFAIK (but maybe it is not true, maybe it was never true...?) > compilers are using default alignment of variables usually according to= > native length of CPU "word". So, as we have 64-bit machines now, it > could be only question of time when compilers will use 64 bits alignmen= t > as default. Reading and writing into a byte aligned on word doesn't bring any advantage and wastes memory and decreases portability so no compiler will ever do it. The whole reason to align is because of performance advantages and instruction availability. --=20 Regards Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko --------------enig404A177F1AEF554B0EF2C8AF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREKAAYFAk6HVlMACgkQNak7dOguQgm2MQD+I6fdQpLngpv5KgGo4dm3FMCb JbtWGIIkRRHI5LignP8A/icCUL0kXSAtXvOJ5sQROwxnPyONdBfjWwmihgyyzOkx =lu2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig404A177F1AEF554B0EF2C8AF--