From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cs89x0_platform : Use ioread16/iowrite16 instead of inw/outw Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:05:33 +0000 Message-ID: <201205040905.33383.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1335779839-30420-1-git-send-email-jaccon.bastiaansen@gmail.com> <201204301419.27119.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, kernel@pengutronix.de, gfm@funxed.com, festevam@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: Jaccon Bastiaansen Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 03 May 2012, Jaccon Bastiaansen wrote: > So if I understand you correctly you would like to have an > iopart_map() call in the cs89x0_probe() function and use the return > value of that iopart_map() call as ioaddr parameter of the > cs89x0_probe1() function. Is this correct? This would make the > cs89x0_probe() function similar to the cs89x0_platform_probe() > function where the return value of the ioremap() call is used as > ioaddr parameter of the cs89x0_probe1() function. Correct. Currently the code relies on some platforms defining the inw/outw functions to the same thing as readw/writew, which is not a correct behaviour. If we change it to always use ioread16/iowrite16, it will be correct in either case. > But why do you want to convert the current 16 bit accesses in the > #else path to 32 bit accesses? Why not using ioread16()/iowrite16()? Sorry, typo on my side, I meant ioread16/iowrite16. Arnd