lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86-64: Calgary IOMMU - Calgary specific bits
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-15 04:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans