From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ide: move SFF I/O code to ide-io-sff.c Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:48:05 +0300 Message-ID: <4974F515.4030304@ru.mvista.com> References: <20090119130309.24745.40877.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090119130322.24745.76137.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <49748B95.9080105@ru.mvista.com> <200901191523.15240.bzolnier@gmail.com> <49748E43.4030009@ru.mvista.com> <20090119173701.13fd24c6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4974C030.5020509@ru.mvista.com> <20090119183607.5ee804e1@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4974CA81.1050506@ru.mvista.com> <20090119184951.35a52184@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4974CEC5.9050402@ru.mvista.com> <20090119213101.798fe1cd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:63869 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757218AbZASVsP (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:48:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090119213101.798fe1cd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. Alan Cox wrote: >>> I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong. The IDE layer is duplicating a >>> generic level of indirection with its own code - purely because IDE >>> pre-dates that core functionality. The whole IDE layer indirection can go >>> away because Linux has caught up with the needs of the IDE layer. >>> >> What IDE indirection you're talking about anyway? >> > > As I said earlier ide_mm_inb etc via the function pointers tf_inb/tf_outb > etc. > Ah... at least they don't have additional address checks that ioread*()/iowrite*() have... > Given how small those functions are it might even be worth rolling them > into two different versions of the functions like ide_tf_read as surely > it costs more to call them (in size) than to inline the two for those > functions? > Indeed. WBR, Sergei