From: "Petr Vandrovec Ing. VTEI" <VANDROVE@vc.cvut.cz>
To: mj@ucw.cz
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [RFC] new bus architecture (+ byte-endianess)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:58:52 MET-1 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <972F6C62379@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz> (raw)
Hi Martin,
I read your specification and it looks good, except that
(1) in proc filesystem, you (probably due to mistake) used
pci0/xx.x/...
pci1/xx.x/...
usb0/xx.x/...
Isn't it better to use pci/0/..., pci/1/... ?
I also did not understand, if pci0/07.0/x.xx are devices on
bridge 7.0 on bus pci0, how is accessible bridge itself? As some
file in 07.0 subdirectory?
(2) will you offer some bus_to_bus address translation functions, for
example for supporting DMA from one (PCI) bus to another on PowerPC
(PowerPC uses translating bridge)?
(3) do not forget about architectures which maps regular I/O into
memory address space - we should have ioremap_io() and inl/outl (_le?) -
on ia32, ioremap_io = nothing, inl/outl are I/O operations, on
PreP PPC, ioremap_io = return io+0x80000000; and inl/outl are synonyms
for readl/writel...
And for byte endianess in readl/writel - if you'll say that on every
architecture readl/writel will store long in little endian, we can
live with it - but I do not know why. If processors supports storing
data with both endianess, why not to export this functionality to kernel
drivers? I can understand that ia32 peoples complaints about supporting
readl_be on their hardware, but PPC can do both be and le accesses very
easy...
If some ports have problem with it (specific iomapping and universal
load/store), then we can create complete set with both ioremap_[lb]e,
{read,write}[wl]_[bl]e. If there is some functionality hidden from
users, programmers get around with ugly hacks... Isn't it easier to
open the doors?
For example matroxfb have to be compatible with old XF86_SVGA on PPC
(do not have, but it is better if it cost almost nothing...). And XF86_SVGA
on PPC switched matrox into big endian mode... So have I to byteswap
all pixels and commands written to hardware and then store these data
to hardware using little-endian store? Why? Or should I break backward
compatibility for no real reason? I do not want to do that.
That's all (for now),
Petr Vandrovec
vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
reply other threads:[~1999-06-07 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=972F6C62379@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz \
--to=vandrove@vc.cvut.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu \
--cc=mj@ucw.cz \
/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