Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:58:21 +0530 | From | kgunda@codeauro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to spmi_pmic_arb |
| |
On 2017-06-02 23:59, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 06/01, kgunda@codeaurora.org wrote: >> >>@@ -209,23 +210,24 @@ static void pa_read_data(struct >> >>spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc) >> >> * @buf: buffer to write. length must be bc + 1. >> >> */ >> >> static void >> >>-pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, const u8 *buf, u32 >> >>reg, u8 bc) >> >>+pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, const u8 *buf, u32 reg, >> >>u8 bc) >> >> { >> >> u32 data = 0; >> >>+ >> >> memcpy(&data, buf, (bc & 3) + 1); >> >>- __raw_writel(data, dev->wr_base + reg); >> >>+ pmic_arb_base_write(pa, reg, data); >> > >> >This is an unrelated change. Not sure what's going on with this >> >diff but we most likely want to keep the __raw_writel() here. See >> >how renames introduce bugs and why we don't value them? >> > >> Actually pmic_arb_base_write has the writel_relaxed inside it. >> that's why we removed the __raw_writel to use the common function. >> Anyways, we drop the renaming patch from this patch series. > > __raw_writel() is there on purpose because we're reading bytes at > a time and the CPU could be big-endian or little-endian. > readl_relaxed() would do a byte swap which we don't want. ok. Thanks for clarifying it. We do not remove the __raw_writel.
| |