Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors

On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 06:52:41PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> In fact, I would be very very very much in favor of, instead of the
> above, defining a set of:
> 
> readsb, readsw, readsl, readsq
> writesb, writesw, writesl, writesq

ARM already has these.  Sounds like a good idea for everyone else to also
implement them. 8)

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.19-rc <-> ThinkPads, summary
• Next by Date: INFO alpha CPU: Locking API testsuite: Results kernel 2.6.18.1
• Previous by thread: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
• Next by thread: Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]