Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755549AbYJHJeo (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:34:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754846AbYJHJeM (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:34:12 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.232]:21706 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754753AbYJHJeK (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:34:10 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=X5ioPUp5il4wk3IyGZ0NmM5NZbclioFcH46nR9nyZK0sIjulWR8VK3iznQkxUgmRoV YItdK4Hn7iboDBrAoJOR9pY5BCPfUrPYmD8v6Rf2d8dNaZUcaIHnLT+E41LBmrZ6CWF7 bNZej1aYTf1dhMpOZNTrinmHuZRdQDOTnPw68= Subject: Re: FRV/ARM unaligned access question From: Harvey Harrison To: Russell King Cc: David Howells , Andrew Morton , LKML In-Reply-To: <20081008091055.GB19322@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1223450773.8195.80.camel@brick> <20081008073519.GA19322@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1223451379.8195.88.camel@brick> <20081008091055.GB19322@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:34:07 -0700 Message-Id: <1223458447.8195.93.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1608 Lines: 39 On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 10:10 +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:36:19AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 08:35 +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:26:13AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > > I noticed that frv/arm are the only two arches that currently use open-coded > > > > byteshifting routines for both the cpu endianness and the other endianness > > > > whereas just about all the other arches use a packed-struct version for the > > > > cpu-endian and then the byteshifting versions (lifted from arm) for the other > > > > endianness. > > > > > > I'm sorry, I think you're mistaken. I've looked at x86, m68k and > > > parisc, and they all use assembly for their swab functions in > > > asm/byteorder.h. > > > > > > > Sorry, not talking about byteorder at the moment, talking about > > unaligned.h. > > At the moment, I've no idea what effect it'll have. I'd need to run > some tests to discover what the effect will be. Not sure when I'll > get around to that. > > If someone else can be found to evaluate what the effect would be... > I don't have hardware to test with, but I'll do some cross-compiles to investigate a bit. I was just curious if there was any known issues on arm, or a specific arm compiler that made you choose the implementation you did. Cheers, Harvey -- 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/