lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: unsigned long ioremap()?
    Abramo Bagnara wrote:
    > "David S. Miller" wrote:
    > > There is a school of thought which believes that:
    > >
    > > struct xdev_regs {
    > > u32 reg1;
    > > u32 reg2;
    > > };
    > >
    > > val = readl(&regs->reg2);
    > >
    > > is cleaner than:
    > >
    > > #define REG1 0x00
    > > #define REG2 0x04
    > >
    > > val = readl(regs + REG2);

    > The problem I see is that with the former solution nothing prevents from
    > to do:
    >
    > regs->reg2 = 13;

    Why should there be something to prevent that?

    If a programmer does that to an ioremapped area, that is a bug. Pure
    and simple.

    We do not need extra mechanisms simply to guard against programmers
    doing the wrong thing all the time.


    > That's indeed the reason to change ioremap prototype for 2.5.

    Say what??

    I have heard a good argument from rth about creating a pci_ioremap,
    which takes a struct pci_dev argument. But there is no reason to change
    the ioremap prototype.

    Jeff


    --
    Jeff Garzik | Game called on account of naked chick
    Building 1024 |
    MandrakeSoft |
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.021 / U:31.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site