On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 22:27 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 20:08 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > Did anyone have a preference for the API? I was thinking
> > > ioread32_native, but ioread32be is fine too.
> >
> > I think doing foo{be,le}{8,16,32}() would be consistent with
> > our byteorder.h interface names.
>
> Thinking about this some more, I know of no case of a BE bus connected
> to a LE system, nor do I think anyone would ever create such a beast, so
> our only missing interface is for a BE bus on a BE system.
It's more a matter of the device than the bus imho...
> Thus, I think io{read,write}{16,32}_native are better interfaces ...
I disagree. The driver will never "know" ...
> they basically mean pass memory operations without byte swaps, so
> they're well defined on both BE and LE systems and correspond exactly to
> our existing _raw_{read,write}{w,l} calls (principle of least surprise).
I don't think it's sane. You know that your device is BE or LE and use
the appropriate interface. "native" doesn't make sense to me in this
context.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
