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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <201205040905.33383.arnd@arndb.de> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists