Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:39:32 +0400 | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IDE] Platform IDE driver |
| |
Hello.
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> This doesn't mean that shift is better anyway. If everyone >> considers it >> better, I give up. But be warned that shift (stride) is not the only >> property >> characterizing register accesses -- the regs might be only accessible as >> 16/32-bit quantities, for example (16-bit is a real world example -- from >> Amiga or smth of that sort, IIRC).
> More importantly, "reg-shift" doesn't say what part of > the bigger words to access. A common example is byte-wide > registers on a 32-bit-only bus; it's about 50%-50% between > connecting the registers to the low byte vs. connecting it > to the byte with the lowest address.
We already have "big-endian" prop used in MPIC nodes, IIRC. Could try to "reuse" it here as well...
> The only realistic way to handle all this is to put some > knowledge into the device driver. This does of course > also mean that no "reg-shift" property is needed; the > device driver can look at your "compatible" property, > instead.
>>>> Why the heck should we care about the UART code taling about IDE?!
>>> Consistency?
>> We're not obliged to be consistent with every piece of the kernel >> code.
> It would be nice to not name similar properties in the > device tree dissimilarly. Kernel code doesn't come into > the picture here.
The "reg-shift" prop is yet unaccepted ad-hockery at this point. ;-) So, I don't see why we have to be consistent with it.
> Segher
WBR, Sergei - 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/
| |