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: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...>, Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@...>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 3:37 pm

Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com> writes:


Have you ever seen a device or platform with the bits reversed?
I.e. one on which 0x01 from CPU POV is 0x80 or 0x80000000 etc.
from device's POV?

Perhaps I was too brief, I should've written "there is no such
thing WRT the CPU-device connections" because the bit order
actually exists on things like serial lines, though it's totally
independent from big/little endianness of the CPU and/or
peripheral devices, and one can't assume anything matches there.

On parallel bus, all bits (at least of an 8-bit byte) are stored
and transmitted at the same time and address, so no bit can be
first or last.

Once again, you shift left (towards MSBit), you multiply, shifting
right divides. At least as long as you limit it to a single byte.

Perhaps if you tell us what are you exactly trying to achieve...
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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)