[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150916150903.8021ca66ba76cb31f34021a2@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:09:03 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Rafał Miłecki
<zajec5@...il.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add __ioread32_copy() and use it
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:50:53 -0700 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > __iowrite32_copy() is marked __visible. I don't actually know what
> > that does and Andi's d47d5c8194579bc changelog (which sucks the big
> > one) didn't explain it. Apparently it has something to do with being
> > implemented in assembly, but zillions of functions are implemented in
> > assembly, so why are only two functions marked this way? Anyway,
> > __ioread32_copy() is implemented in C so I guess __visible isn't needed
> > there.
>
> Yeah, I didn't add visible because there isn't an assembly
> version of __ioread32_copy() so far. I can remove __weak if
> desired. I left it there to match __iowrite32_copy() in case
> x86 wanted to override it but we can do that later or never.
OK. I'd omit the __weak and __visible for now. They can be added later
if someone needs them.
--
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