[U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd_ide: Convert to [read,write][b,w]

[Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>]

Dear Marek Vasut,

In message <1277320683-2057-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com> you wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> ---
>  common/cmd_ide.c |   22 +++++++++++++---------
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

I don't see the big advantage of this patch yet.

>  #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_ATA_PORT_ADDR
> @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ __ide_outb(int dev, int port, unsigned char val)
>  {
>  	debug ("ide_outb (dev= %d, port= 0x%x, val= 0x%02x) : @ 0x%08lx\n",
>  		dev, port, val, (ATA_CURR_BASE(dev)+CONFIG_SYS_ATA_PORT_ADDR(port)));
> -	outb(val, (ATA_CURR_BASE(dev)+CONFIG_SYS_ATA_PORT_ADDR(port)));
> +	writeb(val, (ATA_CURR_BASE(dev)+CONFIG_SYS_ATA_PORT_ADDR(port)));

So we replace outb() => writeb(), but the function where this is used
is still __ide_outb() ?

The __ide_outb() => outb() mapping looks more logical to me.

> -output_data(int dev, ulong *sect_buf, int words)
> +output_data(int dev, uint16_t *sect_buf, int words)
>  {
> -	outsw(ATA_CURR_BASE(dev)+ATA_DATA_REG, sect_buf, words<<1);
> +	int i;
> +	for (i = 0; i < (words << 1); i++)
> +		writew(sect_buf[i], ATA_CURR_BASE(dev)+ATA_DATA_REG);

And here the code size is growing, too.

What are the exact advantages of your version?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
We are all agreed that your  theory  is  crazy.  The  question  which
divides  us  is  whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being
correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.  - Niels Bohr