[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54C12010.8040504@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:06:40 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
Bob Mottram <bob.mottram@...ethink.co.uk>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: tegra: Maintain CPU endianness
22.01.2015 18:22, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> 22.01.2015 10:55, Alexandre Courbot пишет:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Thierry Reding
>> <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should this not technically be le32_to_cpu() since the data originates
>>> from the I2C controller?
>
> No, i2c_readl returns value in CPU endianness, so it's correct. But for
> i2c_writel should be used le32_to_cpu(), since it takes value in CPU endianness.
> It's my overlook, V2 is coming.
>
>>>
>>> Why does this have to be initialized to 0 now?
>>
>> I suspect this is because we are going to memcpy less than 4 bytes
>> into it, but I cannot figure out how that memcpy if guaranteed to
>> produce the expected result for both endiannesses.
>>
> That's correct. Memcpy is working with bytes, so it doesn't care about
> endianness and produces expected result, since I2C message is char array.
>
I'll spend some more time reviewing, to see if nullifying should go as separate
patch.
--
Dmitry
--
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