From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Paul.Mackerras@cs.anu.edu.au Cc: Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-fbdev@vuser.vu.union.edu, rth@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [linux-fbdev] Re: readl() and friends and eieio on PPC References: <199908100100.LAA28784@tango.anu.edu.au> <199908110023.KAA23996@tango.anu.edu.au> <199908112352.JAA25021@tango.anu.edu.au> From: Jes Sorensen Date: 12 Aug 1999 09:38:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: Paul Mackerras's message of "Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:52:31 +1000" Message-ID: Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Mackerras writes: Paul> Jes Sorensen wrote: >> I will have to disagree with you on this one, I consider the PPC >> implementation to be very broken in this regard. Paul> "Very broken" - because drivers work and there is no measurable Paul> performance impact?? !!! ?? Paul> The only possible argument for *not* having the eieio in Paul> readl/writel is that it hurts performance (actually and Paul> measurably, not just potentially). Ok strong wording maybe. I am just quite displeased when people try to hide the real world from programmers because most code was written for the x86 by people without a clue. In the long term I think that sort of approach is going to bite us since code will not get fixed where it should. Jes [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]] [[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting. ]]