From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <38AD4EB4.8870713@fadata.bg> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:52:52 +0100 From: Momchil Velikov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geert Uytterhoeven CC: Paul Mackerras , Cort Dougan , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux/PPC Developer list Subject: Re: insw/outsw/insl/outsl (was: Re: your mail) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > Does anyone have any objection if I make insw/outsw/insl/outsl *not* > > byte-swap the data? The reason is that these functions are mostly used > > for transferring blocks of data, i.e. arrays of bytes. I haven't found a > > single instance where they are used for transferring arrays of 16 or > > 32-bit words. > > > > This would mean that we wouldn't need the kludge in the ide stuff where we > > redefine insw as ide_insw (which doesn't byte-swap). There is currently a > > bug there because insl does still byte-swap, which means that if you set > > the -c1 flag with hdparm, you get byte-swapped data. :-( > > Hmm... This is indeed ambiguous. Is e.g. insl() used to (a) read n 32-bit words > from (little endian) ISA I/O space, or (b) used to read n*4 bytes from ISA I/O > space, using 32-bit accesses? > > What about moving this to linux-kernel? It affects all big endian platforms. How about {ins|outs}_{be|le}{16|32} ? Regards, -velco ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/