From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.ebshome.net (gate.ebshome.net [64.81.67.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "gate.ebshome.net", Issuer "gate.ebshome.net" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A590767EE4 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:25:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:25:56 -0700 From: Eugene Surovegin To: Shawn Jin Message-ID: <20050814042556.GB23952@gate.ebshome.net> References: <20050812203335.K30033@cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: ppcembed Subject: Re: writel(), readl() in List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 08:56:50PM -0700, Shawn Jin wrote: > > read*()/write*() are accessors for PCI and PCI only. PCI is little > > If read*()/write*() are designed for PCI access only as you claimed, > that explains why they call in/out_leXX() funcitons. > > The problem is that read*()/write*() are misused in some places, e.g., > serial drivers such as serial8250. The serial_in() and serial_out() > call read*() and write*() respectively. So what's your recommendation > in such a case? Why do you think this is a problem? Why do you think they are misused? Please explain. FYI, there _are_ serial PCI cards. -- Eugene