netdev - Re: [net-next] gianfar: use more portable i/o accessors

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:44:43 +0000
From:	Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825@...escale.com>
To:	Phillips Kim-R1AAHA <R1AAHA@...escale.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [net-next] gianfar: use more portable i/o accessors

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Kim Phillips
<kim.phillips@...escale.com> wrote:
> in/out_be32 accessors are Power arch centric whereas
> ioread/writebe32 are available in other arches.  Also, unlike
> in/out_be32, ioread/writebe32 expect non-volatile address arguments.

I was under the impression that the "volatile" in in/out_be32() is so
that the functions can accept a volatile pointer, not that it expects
one.  Otherwise, if you pass in a volatile, you'll get a compiler
warning.

>
> Signed-off-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@...escale.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.h | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.h
> index 1b6a67c..91bb2de 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.h
> @@ -1136,16 +1136,16 @@ static inline int gfar_has_errata(struct gfar_private *priv,
>         return priv->errata & err;
>  }
>
> -static inline u32 gfar_read(volatile unsigned __iomem *addr)
> +static inline u32 gfar_read(unsigned __iomem *addr)
>  {
>         u32 val;
> -       val = in_be32(addr);
> +       val = ioread32be(addr);
>         return val;
>  }

Can't we just get rid of these functions altogether?  Or at least, get
rid of the local variable?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html