Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:18:13 -0600 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86-64: Calgary IOMMU - Calgary specific bits | From | Olof Johansson <> |
| |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:27:33PM -0600, Jon Mason wrote:
> > We're killing structures like that one by one on PPC, I just haven't > > gotten around to dealing with tce_entry yet. > > > > The way to do it is to use masking and shifting by hand. > > Really? I thought this was much more elegant than masking and > bitshifting (and less prone to errors). Is there a particular reason to > do it that way?
Me too, but what I've been told is that there's no guarantee for the union/struct layouts being exactly like you (and the hardware) expects them to be across toolchains, etc.
The endianness issues are also painful, in architecture-specific code it's obviously not as big an issue as in generic drivers. Single-architecture system drivers are a grey area in that aspect, but it's better to set good examples then bad ones for the generic driver writers looking for example code.
-Olof - 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/
| |