Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Lennart Sorensen
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 10:46 am

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 04:10:26PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

The guy wiring up the hardware should connect the wires correctly.


Doesn't the bus usually have some definition of bit order which the
device would have to adhere to?  After all there must be address lines
somewhere.

Does this perhaps offer anything useful?
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6788

--
Len Sorensen
-
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, 11:27 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 11:35 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 12:35 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 12:43 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 12:47 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 1:04 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 1:07 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Fri Oct 5, 1:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 1:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Anton Altaparmakov, (Fri Oct 5, 2:06 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 2:10 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 2:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 2:29 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 2:32 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 4:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Fri Oct 5, 4:27 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 10:46 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 10:56 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 11:34 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 11:50 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 11:57 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 12:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 12:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 12:39 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 12:44 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 2:40 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Wed Oct 10, 5:05 am)