[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A7A17C.8090505@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:16:12 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc: Vitaly Bordug <vitb@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver (was: MMIO IDE driver)
Hello.
Scott Wood wrote:
>>> + hwif->hw.io_ports[IDE_DATA_OFFSET] = port;
>>> +
>>> + port += (1 << pdata->ioport_shift);
>>> + for (i = IDE_ERROR_OFFSET; i <= IDE_STATUS_OFFSET;
>>> + i++, port += (1 << pdata->ioport_shift))
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks like shift doesn't buy as anything, why not just use stride?
> It doesn't buy us anything in here, but it's conceivable that someone
> may want to write a driver that uses a shift in the I/O accessor rather
> than an array of port offsets,
It wouldn't be IDE driver then, and neither it would be libata which also
does this another way this (despite pata_platform uses shifts too -- not in
the accessors, so no speed loss).
> and it's easier to convert a shift to a stride than the other way around
> (not all architectures have an
> equivalent of the cntlzw innstruction, and shift makes it clear that the
> stride must be power-of-two). Plus, using shift is consistent with what
> we do on ns16550.
Why the heck should we care about the UART code taling about IDE?!
So, let me consider your argument purely speculative and invalid. ;-)
> -Scott
WBR, Sergei
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists