Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758749AbXIRUNO (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:13:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755104AbXIRUM7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:12:59 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]:29880 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754662AbXIRUM5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:12:57 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=h/xj5tsRmYcxXHzsHnW3RAHIRpJCXfca1E7rzhalbXprehd2sjdUzYWmKPwB9eXEFVRLPiXfTnkVuxr+6taeHjUmZ+xJ+FSKca1pQ90mGY6NHs4gN1l8HLJqusdQFv2SZcg/YKevzh2GltJPsNmZZk5adpJAo19bWb1KAKPmmeg= Message-ID: <43e72e890709181312sf2b421cn49be3389b3786a2a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:12:56 -0400 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Linus Torvalds" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify pci_iomap() usage for MMIO-only devices Cc: "Alan Cox" , linux-kernel , "Jeff Garzik" , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <43e72e890709171322x76ab6b70xd29bf97e3643c553@mail.gmail.com> <20070918113401.6a8a737f@the-village.bc.nu> <43e72e890709181146s604e0f9fl8b0c16627469c77f@mail.gmail.com> <43e72e890709181207j7c85dc29sb355a9f5a4207411@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1154 Lines: 29 On 9/18/07, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > ACK -- driver developers use this just to save themselves a few lines > > from calling pci_resource_start() and friends. How about having an > > inline which does what pci_iomap() does except it doesn't call > > ioport_map() ? I am just not sure where this would go.. > > I'm not understanding what the problem is? > > Why don't these people just use "ioread*()/iowrite*()"? > > In other words, the whole point of *not* using "read*/write*()" is that > you get a whole slew of much nicer interfaces. > > So can people explain this fundamental issue? Why do people insist on > using the old interfaces (and matching them with the new setup)? An extra branch is created on MMIO-only devices on read/writes on the IO_COND macro using this interface -- or is this optimized out? Luis - 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/