[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <497500AC.3040406@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:37:32 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ide: move SFF I/O code to ide-io-sff.c
Hello, I wrote:
>>>> I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong. The IDE layer is
>>>> duplicating a
>>>> generic level of indirection with its own code - purely because IDE
>>>> pre-dates that core functionality. The whole IDE layer indirection
>>>> can go
>>>> away because Linux has caught up with the needs of the IDE layer.
>>>>
>>> What IDE indirection you're talking about anyway?
>>>
>>
>> As I said earlier ide_mm_inb etc via the function pointers
>> tf_inb/tf_outb
>> etc.
>>
>
> Ah... at least they don't have additional address checks that
> ioread*()/iowrite*() have...
Somehow I was looling at __ide_mm_{ins|outs}*() calls in ide-iops.c
instead... it doesn't help to fix the USB code and argue about IDE at
the same time. :-]
>> into two different versions of the functions like ide_tf_read as surely
>> it costs more to call them (in size) than to inline the two for those
>> functions?
>>
> Given how small those functions are it might even be worth rolling them
>
> Indeed.
The calling fucntions aren't that small, so it's again arguable...
MBR, 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