Inconsistent low-level arch functions between ARM and x86

[mrnuke]

So, I found this:

ARM: static inline void write32(uint32_t val, void *addr)
x86: static inline void write32(unsigned long addr, uint32_t value)

Now, isn't a 4-byte memory write a 4-byte memory write independent of 
architecture? Forget about the fact that the x86 version takes an unsigned 
long instead of a void * for the address; the ARM and x86 variants have their 
arguments mixed up.

I actually came across this when trying to use our 8250 memmapped UART code on 
an ARM chip. The original code was written for x86, and hence, it can't work 
on ARM (yet).

I propose that these simple memory accessors be unified. Since they refer to a 
memory address, I propose void * for the address parameter. I don't care what 
order the parameters come in as long it's consistent between arches. Any 
takers?

Alex

Inconsistent low-level arch functions between ARM and x86

[ron minnich]

The functions are wrong in two ways.

on the x86 side, the addr should be a void *. Had we done this long
ago we would have caught some bugs.

On the ARM side, the addr should be first, not last, to be consistent
with other "addr"s in coreboot (e.g. pci space). So we'd like to fix
the argument order being backwards too.

It's been on my fix it list for months, it's pretty easy with
coccinnelle, I just have not had time.

ron

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM, mrnuke  wrote:
> So, I found this:
>
> ARM: static inline void write32(uint32_t val, void *addr)
> x86: static inline void write32(unsigned long addr, uint32_t value)
>
> Now, isn't a 4-byte memory write a 4-byte memory write independent of
> architecture? Forget about the fact that the x86 version takes an unsigned
> long instead of a void * for the address; the ARM and x86 variants have their
> arguments mixed up.
>
> I actually came across this when trying to use our 8250 memmapped UART code on
> an ARM chip. The original code was written for x86, and hence, it can't work
> on ARM (yet).
>
> I propose that these simple memory accessors be unified. Since they refer to a
> memory address, I propose void * for the address parameter. I don't care what
> order the parameters come in as long it's consistent between arches. Any
> takers?
>
> Alex