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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox