Re: [PATCH 20/32] rt2x00: byte ordering correctness

[Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1511 bytes --]

On Friday 28 April 2006 15:42, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 28 April 2006 15:31, you wrote:
> > On Friday 28 April 2006 15:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:59:23PM +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > > > I am not sure if that would be a wise idea,
> > > > there is no byte ordering done in rt2500usb except for the EEPROM
> > > > contents which is little endian.
> > > > So when the module is used on a normal x86 platform, there won't be
> > > > any big endian structures or fields.
> > > 
> > > Well, then you'll need __le* annotation and the le*_to_cpu/cpu_to_le*
> > > instead.  Any new driver should be endian clean.
> > 
> > Not exactly true for rt2570, to correctly operate with the device, no
> > endian conversions should be made at all. Not to big endian and not
> > to little endian. The register should be send as a regular value with the
> > byteordering equal to the byteordering of the currently used CPU.
> > It has been tested to send only little endian or big endian values to
> > the device on all CPU's, and in all cases it meant that the device would not function on
> > CPU's with the other byte ordering.
> 
> I guess you are confusing something here:
> MMIO access versus values in structs (for example) that 
> are accessed through DMA (for example).

Ah ok. I was indeed missing that point.
In that case you are right, there could be some places where
the __le* annotation could be used.
I'll create a quick patch to do that.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]