On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted
Hmm, ok. I too would hope that the volatile keyword would sort that out but,
since the '+' doesn't seem to change the generated code, I can add that. It
does, however, mean we have to cast away the `const' in the read accessors
which makes the code even uglier.
Nah... the const is wrong. The way you wrote it means that addr may
change but the pointed data is constant. This is obviously wrong since
we expect the pointed location to change even from a read.
That's the prototype for the read accessors though -- a bunch of other
architectures define them that way (including asm-generic), so I wonder what
the reasoning behind that was?
Will