netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cs89x0_platform : Use ioread16/iowrite16 instead of inw/outw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 4 May 2012 09:05:33 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Jaccon Bastiaansen <jaccon.bastiaansen@...il.com>
Cc:	s.hauer@...gutronix.de, gfm@...xed.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	festevam@...il.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cs89x0_platform : Use ioread16/iowrite16 instead of inw/outw

On Thursday 03 May 2012, Jaccon Bastiaansen wrote:
> So if I understand you correctly you would like to have an
> iopart_map() call in the cs89x0_probe() function and use the return
> value of that iopart_map() call as ioaddr parameter of the
> cs89x0_probe1() function. Is this correct? This would make the
> cs89x0_probe() function similar to the cs89x0_platform_probe()
> function where the return value of the ioremap() call is used as
> ioaddr parameter of the cs89x0_probe1() function.

Correct. Currently the code relies on some platforms defining
the inw/outw functions to the same thing as readw/writew, which
is not a correct behaviour. If we change it to always use
ioread16/iowrite16, it will be correct in either case.

> But why do you want to convert the current 16 bit accesses in the
> #else path to 32 bit accesses? Why not using ioread16()/iowrite16()?

Sorry, typo on my side, I meant ioread16/iowrite16.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html