Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:19:57 -0500 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca>, Thomas Moestl <tmoestl@gmx.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: adding more endian conversion and bus space functions Message-ID: <20020219191957.H5526@espresso.q9media.com> In-Reply-To: <20020113230455.K709-100000@gamplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:21:08PM %2B1100 References: <20020112115513.L39321@locore.ca> <20020113230455.K709-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Sorry this is a late reply.] Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > > I think the bus > > > space headers should not depend on any endianness support in other > > > headers except <machine/endian.h> defining _[_]BYTE_ORDER. > > > > Why? I disagree. > > Because they are specialized for bus accesses and need to support many > more types of accesses than <machine/endian.h>. They can easily duplicate > the small part of ntohl(), etc., that they need (if they need it), like > the i386 one already does for most of the i/o instructions in the > i386 cpufunc.h. If I understand the problem correctly, these endian functions are needed in several places, so it doesn't make sense to localize it to one subsystem. Atleast one place is already using some of these functions (<sys/mchain.h>). I also understand FFS will require these new functions in order to support non-native endian FSes. Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020219191957.H5526>