Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:38:15 +0100 | From | Nicolas Ferre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 11/19] ARM: at91/PMC: make register base soc independent |
| |
On 02/22/2012 11:50 PM, Ryan Mallon : > 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> >> Reviewed-by: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@gmail.com> >> --- > > <snip> > >> - seq_printf(s, "SCSR = %8x\n", scsr = at91_sys_read(AT91_PMC_SCSR)); >> - seq_printf(s, "PCSR = %8x\n", pcsr = at91_sys_read(AT91_PMC_PCSR)); >> - seq_printf(s, "MOR = %8x\n", at91_sys_read(AT91_CKGR_MOR)); >> - seq_printf(s, "MCFR = %8x\n", at91_sys_read(AT91_CKGR_MCFR)); >> - seq_printf(s, "PLLA = %8x\n", at91_sys_read(AT91_CKGR_PLLAR)); >> + seq_printf(s, "SCSR = %8x\n", scsr = at91_pmc_read(AT91_PMC_SCSR)); >> + seq_printf(s, "PCSR = %8x\n", pcsr = at91_pmc_read(AT91_PMC_PCSR)); > > > I realise the original code is wrong, so doesn't need to be fixed in > this patch, but can we please move the assignments out of the seq_printf > calls.
Well, I would not say "wrong". But ugly, for sure. I queue a patch to correct this just before this one.
> <snip> > >> void __init at91_ioremap_ramc(int id, u32 addr, u32 size) >> @@ -208,7 +207,7 @@ void __init at91_ioremap_ramc(int id, u32 addr, u32 size) >> } >> at91_ramc_base[id] = ioremap(addr, size); >> if (!at91_ramc_base[id]) >> - pr_warn("Impossible to ioremap ramc.%d 0x%x\n", id, addr); >> + panic("Impossible to ioremap ramc.%d 0x%x\n", id, addr); > > > This is in the wrong patch, and should be folded into the correct patch.
Absolutely, this belongs to the previous patch. Thanks for highlighting this.
Best regards, -- Nicolas Ferre
| |