From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:21:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gprs137-41.eurotel.cz ([IPv6:::ffff:160.218.137.41]:27908 "EHLO kopretinka") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:21:37 +0000 Received: from ladis by kopretinka with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AlmBX-0000FV-00; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:40:35 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:40:32 +0100 To: Kevin Paul Herbert Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Removal of ____raw_readq() and ____raw_writeq() from asm-mips/io.h Message-ID: <20040128094032.GB900@kopretinka> References: <1075255111.8744.4.camel@shakedown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1075255111.8744.4.camel@shakedown> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Ladislav Michl Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 4155 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ladis@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips 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