Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Friday, October 5, 2007 - 4:04 pm

Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com> writes:


Bit addressing is strictly internal to the cpu, the smallest unit that
the cpu can address externally is a byte.  The only place where bit
order matters on the C level is in a bitfield that is overlayed over a
block of memory, but this is not visible outside the cpu.


The bit mapping on your device is strictly internal to the device and
has nothing to do with bit order on the C level.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
__LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 2:27 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 2:35 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 3:35 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Anton Altaparmakov, (Fri Oct 5, 5:06 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 5:10 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 1:46 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 1:56 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 2:50 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 3:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:39 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 5:40 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 6:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Wed Oct 10, 8:05 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 2:57 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 3:44 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 6:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 2:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 5:29 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 5:32 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 7:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 3:43 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 3:47 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 4:04 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 4:07 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 5:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Fri Oct 5, 4:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 4:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Fri Oct 5, 7:27 pm)