Code generation involving __raw_readl and __raw_writel

[Måns Rullgård]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> writes:

> On Thursday 27 November 2014 15:51:55 Mason wrote:
>> Arnd,
>> 
>> First of all, thanks (a lot) for your highly informative replies!
>> 
>> On 27/11/2014 14:12, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thursday 27 November 2014 14:01:41 Mason wrote:
>> >
>> >> #define gbus_read_reg32(r)      __raw_readl((volatile void __iomem *)IO_ADDRESS(r))
>> >> #define gbus_write_reg32(r, v)  __raw_writel(v, (volatile void __iomem *)IO_ADDRESS(r))
>> >
>> > Right, that's how things used to be done a while ago.
>> 
>> So, IIUC, old code used to call __raw_readl directly, but modern
>> code is supposed to call either readl or readl_relaxed?
>> 
>> (BTW, the original code is 4-5 years old, while my target is 3.14.x)
>
> I meant the IO_ADDRESS stuff. Modern code uses ioremap() instead
> since the IO_ADDRESS was platform specific, and drivers can no longer
> use platform headers on CONFIG_ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, which is used
> for all new code now.
>
> The __raw_readl() was probably considered bad back then already, but
> a lot of people did it as we were lacking readl_relaxed().
>
> Would you consider submitting the code upstream?

This appears to be targeting a Sigma Designs chip, and nobody has to my
knowledge ever seen anything go upstream from them.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans at mansr.com