* CrystalHD driver safe on big endian systems?
@ 2010-03-21 21:03 Leon Woestenberg
2010-03-22 3:53 ` Scott D. Davilla
[not found] ` <p06240805c7cc98bdf217@192.168.9.6>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Leon Woestenberg @ 2010-03-21 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jarod, Naren (Narendra) Sankar, hancockrwd, jarod, linux-kernel,
davilla, abraham.manu
Hello all,
has the CrystalHD driver/library been tested on big endian systems?
The (staging GIT tree) driver sources seem to use bitfields in C, is
this safe under different endianess?
I'm currently testing two BCM70012 modules on a big-endian PowerPC
system and it fails changing the clock PLL to 175 MHz. This could be a
pair of defective modules, or the wrong bits being modified.
Unfortunately, I do not have a little endian system with mini-PCIe
available to do a A-B check.
Regards,
--
Leon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: CrystalHD driver safe on big endian systems?
2010-03-21 21:03 CrystalHD driver safe on big endian systems? Leon Woestenberg
@ 2010-03-22 3:53 ` Scott D. Davilla
[not found] ` <p06240805c7cc98bdf217@192.168.9.6>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Scott D. Davilla @ 2010-03-22 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon Woestenberg
Cc: jarod, Naren (Narendra) Sankar, hancockrwd, jarod, linux-kernel,
abraham.manu
>has the CrystalHD driver/library been tested on big endian systems?
>
>The (staging GIT tree) driver sources seem to use bitfields in C, is
>this safe under different endianess?
>
>I'm currently testing two BCM70012 modules on a big-endian PowerPC
>system and it fails changing the clock PLL to 175 MHz. This could be a
>pair of defective modules, or the wrong bits being modified.
>Unfortunately, I do not have a little endian system with mini-PCIe
>available to do a A-B check.
Not sure if anyone has done work testing under big endian platforms.
From what I've seen in code, it looks definite little endian based
and would need a look over regarding byte swap.
Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread[parent not found: <p06240805c7cc98bdf217@192.168.9.6>]
* Re: CrystalHD driver safe on big endian systems?
[not found] ` <p06240805c7cc98bdf217@192.168.9.6>
@ 2010-03-22 11:32 ` Leon Woestenberg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Leon Woestenberg @ 2010-03-22 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott D. Davilla
Cc: jarod, Naren (Narendra) Sankar, hancockrwd, jarod, linux-kernel,
abraham.manu
Hello Scott and others,
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Scott D. Davilla <davilla@4pi.com> wrote:
>
> <..> From what I've seen in code, it looks definite little endian based and would need
> a look over regarding byte swap.
>
What parts of the code assumes little endian from what you've seen?
Now, byte swap endianess is one thing, C bitfields in combination with
it, another. I have given it a first shot here (mailer unsuitable for
sending patches), still failed on PowerPC:
http://www.sidebranch.com/crystalhd/
May I suggest we instrument all register access functions with a
printk() of the register being written? Then I can compare little
endian access patterns with big endian, to be sure we get the
bitfields, code assumptions and byte swap correctly.
Regards,
--
Leon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-03-22 11:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-03-21 21:03 CrystalHD driver safe on big endian systems? Leon Woestenberg
2010-03-22 3:53 ` Scott D. Davilla
[not found] ` <p06240805c7cc98bdf217@192.168.9.6>
2010-03-22 11:32 ` Leon Woestenberg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®