Bug 1839 - Fixes for loadable modules and strict aligned access in int10 module
Summary: Fixes for loadable modules and strict aligned access in int10 module
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: xorg
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Server/General (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other NetBSD
: high normal
Assignee: Daniel Stone
QA Contact: Xorg Project Team
URL:
Whiteboard: 2011BRB_Reviewed
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-11-12 02:33 UTC by Nick Hudson
Modified: 2011-10-17 03:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Attachments
See bug text (4.62 KB, patch)
2004-11-12 02:34 UTC, Nick Hudson
no flags Details | Splinter Review

Description Nick Hudson 2004-11-12 02:33:56 UTC
While getting X working on my NetBSD/cats which is an ARM based platform I've 
needed to fix the following. 
 
- IOPortBase needs to be declared somewhere other than 
    xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.h 
    xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/chips/util/AsmMacros.h 
 
  otherwise each module ends up with their own version. I chose 
 
    xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bsd/arm_video.c 
 
  this is inline with the powerpc variable ioBase. 
 
- the int10 module with cause unaligned accesses which aren't allowed on most 
  architecture. My patch prevents these on ARM only, however.
Comment 1 Nick Hudson 2004-11-12 02:34:47 UTC
Created attachment 1297 [details] [review]
See bug text
Comment 2 Nick Hudson 2004-11-12 02:35:57 UTC
I should mention that the diff is actually against the NetBSD xsrc cvs module, 
but should apply to xorg relatively easily 
Comment 3 Daniel Stone 2006-06-03 02:20:17 UTC
are the int10 fixes generally applicable (i.e. are they expected to work on
other architectures)?
Comment 4 Nick Hudson 2006-06-05 04:02:44 UTC
Most platforms do not support unaligned access. i386 is one of the few that do.  
The diffs could be made more generic as I only with the arm not supporting 
unlianged accesses. 
Comment 5 Daniel Stone 2006-10-28 17:02:38 UTC
egbert can probably better comment on this one
Comment 6 Daniel Stone 2007-02-27 01:24:37 UTC
Sorry about the phenomenal bug spam, guys.  Adding xorg-team@ to the QA contact so bugs don't get lost in future.
Comment 7 Daniel Stone 2007-04-07 15:23:46 UTC
is int10 speed actually an issue here? if not, we should probably just do byte accesses everywhere we can, for safety.  i'm really not keen on doing the 'if it's arm, then we need aligned' thing.
Comment 8 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia 2011-10-17 03:47:11 UTC
Is there still a problem here?  It doesn't seem like it is... reopen if I'm 
wrong.

Also, the patch is very wrong wrt ifdef-fu, removing patch keyword.


Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.