[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1104271224030.2239-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>
cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: ARM unaligned MMIO access with attribute((packed))
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 00:21, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> >> In my case it's this writel() in ehci-hub.c that gets chopped into
> >> strbs:
> >>
> >> /* force reset to complete */
> >> ehci_writel(ehci, temp & ~(PORT_RWC_BITS | PORT_RESET),
> >> status_reg);
> >
> > Why would that get messed up? The status_reg variable doesn't have any
> > __atribute__((packed)) associated with it.
>
> The initialization of status_reg is:
>
> u32 __iomem *status_reg
> = &ehci->regs->port_status[(wIndex & 0xff) - 1];
>
> where ehci->regs is a pointer to the packed struct ehci_regs. So, this
> is the same problem of casting pointers to stricter alignment.
Right. I can understand the compiler complaining about the cast to
stricter alignment during the initialization. But I don't understand
why that would affect the code generated for the writel function.
Alan Stern
--
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