Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ARM: EXYNOS: PM: replace EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_* macros by static inlines | Date | Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:16:40 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On Monday, June 02, 2014 03:05:40 PM Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi, > > On 02.06.2014 14:35, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > Replace EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR and EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG macros > > by exynos_boot_vector_addr() and exynos_boot_vector_flag() static > > inlines. > > > > This patch shouldn't cause any functionality changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> > > Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c > > index 87c0d34..cf09383 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c > > @@ -166,12 +166,23 @@ int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster) > > S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN); > > } > > > > -#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \ > > - S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \ > > - (sysram_base_addr + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0)) > > -#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \ > > - S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \ > > - (sysram_base_addr + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1)) > > +static inline void __iomem *exynos_boot_vector_addr(void) > > +{ > > + if (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1) > > + return S5P_INFORM7; > > + else if (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0) > > + return sysram_base_addr + 0x24; > > + return S5P_INFORM0; > > I know this is not strictly related to this patch, but isn't a check > whether the SoC is Exynos4210 also needed, before comparing the revision > with Exynos4210-specific values?
Yes, it is needed but other SoCs need to be verified that they do not rely on a buggy code (to not introduce regressions). This is of course outside a scope of the current patchset.
> Otherwise looks good. > > Best regards, > Tomasz
Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
| |