Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> writes: > but the gist is that IBM has > traditionally bit 0 for MSB and x for LSB. It's a pain to work with: > for one, bits in the same place in a word (say, control register) are > renumbered in 32 vs 64. I wasn't aware of that, but it doesn't really change the bit order, only bit names (numbers actually). Extremely weird BTW but I guess these things weren't that obvious to everyone some 50 years ago. > And I've worked on at least one piece of > hardware in which the hardware designer had a brain-fart and first board > had bit 0 on the CPU wired to bit 0 on the northbridge - should have > been 31 -> 0, 30 -> 1, etc... I suspect the board wasn't able to run any OS, was it? :-) Would make a real example of the different order of bits, though. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- References:
- __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: [email protected] (Lennart Sorensen)
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]>
- Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Stop docproc segfaulting when SRCTREE isn't set.
- Next by Date: [PATCH] natsemi: Use NATSEMI_TIMER_FREQ consistently
- Previous by thread: Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- Next by thread: Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
- Index(es):
 |