Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:01:51 +0100 | From | Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 02/19] ARM: at91/at91x40: remove use of at91_sys_read/write |
| |
On 14:59 Thu 23 Feb , Ryan Mallon wrote: > On 23/02/12 14:25, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > On 09:22 Thu 23 Feb , Ryan Mallon wrote: > >> On 22/02/12 20:39, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >> > >>> From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> > >>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c | 2 +- > >>> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40_time.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- > >>> arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91x40.h | 18 +++++++++--------- > >>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c > >>> index 0154b7f..5400a1d 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c > >>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static void at91x40_idle(void) > >>> * Disable the processor clock. The processor will be automatically > >>> * re-enabled by an interrupt or by a reset. > >>> */ > >>> - at91_sys_write(AT91_PS_CR, AT91_PS_CR_CPU); > >>> + __raw_writel(AT91_PS_CR_CPU, AT91_PS_CR); > >> > >> > >> This doesn't seem to be equivalent, at91_sys_write does: > >> > >> void __iomem *addr = (void __iomem *)AT91_VA_BASE_SYS; > >> __raw_writel(value, addr + reg_offset); > >> > >> and this patch doesn't redefine AT91_PS_CR. Was it broken before this > >> patch? What am I missing? > > this is right > > #define AT91_PS_CR (AT91_PS + 0) /* PS Control register */ > > > That doesn't answer my question. > > The old, at91_sys_write, version was writing to (using __raw_writel): > > AT91_VA_BASE_SYS + AT91_PS_CR > > The new version is writing, also using __raw_writel, to: > > AT91_PS_CR > > The value of AT91_PS_CR is not changed in this patch. Assuming that > AT91_VA_BASE_SYS for at91x40 (which at a quick glance it is not), then > the old and the new version of the code are not writing to the same > address. > > Was it previously incorrect, or is it incorrect now? it's as we update
+#define AT91_PS 0xffff4000 /* Power Save */
Best Regards, J.
| |