* [PATCH 2/5] pxa: Remove unused variable in clock-pxa3xx.c
2011-01-09 23:29 [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-09 23:29 ` Marek Vasut
2011-01-10 22:42 ` Eric Miao
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 3/5] ARM: pxa: Use cpu_has_ipr() consistently in irq.c Marek Vasut
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2011-01-09 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c | 1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c
index 1b08a34..3f864cd 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c
@@ -115,7 +115,6 @@ static unsigned long clk_pxa3xx_smemc_getrate(struct clk *clk)
{
unsigned long acsr = ACSR;
unsigned long memclkcfg = __raw_readl(MEMCLKCFG);
- unsigned int smcfs = (acsr >> 23) & 0x7;
return BASE_CLK * smcfs_mult[(acsr >> 23) & 0x7] /
df_clkdiv[(memclkcfg >> 16) & 0x3];
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH 2/5] pxa: Remove unused variable in clock-pxa3xx.c
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 2/5] pxa: Remove unused variable in clock-pxa3xx.c Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-10 22:42 ` Eric Miao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2011-01-10 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Applied.
> ---
> ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c | ? ?1 -
> ?1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c
> index 1b08a34..3f864cd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c
> @@ -115,7 +115,6 @@ static unsigned long clk_pxa3xx_smemc_getrate(struct clk *clk)
> ?{
> ? ? ? ?unsigned long acsr = ACSR;
> ? ? ? ?unsigned long memclkcfg = __raw_readl(MEMCLKCFG);
> - ? ? ? unsigned int smcfs = (acsr >> 23) & 0x7;
>
> ? ? ? ?return BASE_CLK * smcfs_mult[(acsr >> 23) & 0x7] /
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?df_clkdiv[(memclkcfg >> 16) & 0x3];
> --
> 1.7.2.3
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/5] ARM: pxa: Use cpu_has_ipr() consistently in irq.c
2011-01-09 23:29 [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c Marek Vasut
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 2/5] pxa: Remove unused variable in clock-pxa3xx.c Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-09 23:29 ` Marek Vasut
2011-01-10 22:43 ` Eric Miao
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation Marek Vasut
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2011-01-09 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
index 54e91c9..78f0e0c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);
}
- if (!cpu_is_pxa25x())
+ if (cpu_has_ipr())
for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++)
__raw_writel(saved_ipr[i], IRQ_BASE + IPR(i));
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH 3/5] ARM: pxa: Use cpu_has_ipr() consistently in irq.c
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 3/5] ARM: pxa: Use cpu_has_ipr() consistently in irq.c Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-10 22:43 ` Eric Miao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2011-01-10 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Applied.
> ---
> ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? ?2 +-
> ?1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index 54e91c9..78f0e0c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);
> ? ? ? ?}
>
> - ? ? ? if (!cpu_is_pxa25x())
> + ? ? ? if (cpu_has_ipr())
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(saved_ipr[i], IRQ_BASE + IPR(i));
>
> --
> 1.7.2.3
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
2011-01-09 23:29 [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c Marek Vasut
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 2/5] pxa: Remove unused variable in clock-pxa3xx.c Marek Vasut
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 3/5] ARM: pxa: Use cpu_has_ipr() consistently in irq.c Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-09 23:29 ` Marek Vasut
2011-01-10 12:09 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-10 22:49 ` Eric Miao
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 5/5] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio() Marek Vasut
2011-01-10 22:40 ` [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c Eric Miao
4 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2011-01-09 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 10 +++++-----
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
index 78f0e0c..81edf97 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
@@ -194,14 +194,14 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
static unsigned long saved_icmr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
-static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS];
+static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state)
{
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
- void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
+ for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
+ void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
__raw_writel(0, base + ICMR);
@@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
{
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
- void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
+ for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
+ void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
__raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-10 12:09 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-10 22:49 ` Eric Miao
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2011-01-10 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 10-01-2011 2:29, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut<marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index 78f0e0c..81edf97 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -194,14 +194,14 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> static unsigned long saved_icmr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
> -static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS];
> +static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
>
> static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> - void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> + for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
Won't the loop condition also have to change?
> + void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
>
> saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
> __raw_writel(0, base + ICMR);
> @@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> - void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> + for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
Same question here...
> + void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
>
> __raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
> __raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);
WBR, Sergei
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation Marek Vasut
2011-01-10 12:09 ` Sergei Shtylyov
@ 2011-01-10 22:49 ` Eric Miao
2011-01-10 23:13 ` Marek Vasut
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2011-01-10 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> ---
> ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? 10 +++++-----
> ?1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index 78f0e0c..81edf97 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -194,14 +194,14 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
>
> ?#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> ?static unsigned long saved_icmr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
> -static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS];
> +static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
>
This isn't right I'm afraid. Unlike other IRQ registers, each interrupt
line has its own IPR register. So the changes below are also invalid.
> ?static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state)
> ?{
> ? ? ? ?int i;
>
> - ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICMR);
> @@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> ?{
> ? ? ? ?int i;
>
> - ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);
> --
> 1.7.2.3
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
2011-01-10 22:49 ` Eric Miao
@ 2011-01-10 23:13 ` Marek Vasut
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2011-01-10 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Monday 10 January 2011 23:49:07 Eric Miao wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > index 78f0e0c..81edf97 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > @@ -194,14 +194,14 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > static unsigned long saved_icmr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
> > -static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS];
> > +static unsigned long saved_ipr[MAX_INTERNAL_IRQS/32];
>
> This isn't right I'm afraid. Unlike other IRQ registers, each interrupt
> line has its own IPR register. So the changes below are also invalid.
You're right, stupid me ... I just noticed it too (unlike your email). Can you
check v2 please ?
Cheers
>
> > static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state)
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> > - void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> > + for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
> > + void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
> >
> > saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
> > __raw_writel(0, base + ICMR);
> > @@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> > - void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> > + for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++) {
> > + void __iomem *base = irq_base(i << 5);
> >
> > __raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
> > __raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);
> > --
> > 1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5/5] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
2011-01-09 23:29 [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c Marek Vasut
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 4/5] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-09 23:29 ` Marek Vasut
2011-01-10 12:04 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-10 22:40 ` [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c Eric Miao
4 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2011-01-09 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
index 81edf97..96571fe 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
@@ -112,14 +112,14 @@ static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
{
struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
- desc->chip->mask(irq);
+ pxa_mask_irq(irq);
}
static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
{
struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
- desc->chip->unmask(irq);
+ pxa_unmask_irq(irq);
}
static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH 5/5] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 5/5] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio() Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-10 12:04 ` Sergei Shtylyov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2011-01-10 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hello.
On 10-01-2011 2:29, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut<marek.vasut@gmail.com>
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index 81edf97..96571fe 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -112,14 +112,14 @@ static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> {
> struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
You should have removed that variable too as it's not unused.
> - desc->chip->mask(irq);
> + pxa_mask_irq(irq);
> }
>
> static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> {
> struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
Same here...
> - desc->chip->unmask(irq);
> + pxa_unmask_irq(irq);
> }
WBR, Sergei
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c
2011-01-09 23:29 [PATCH 1/5] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c Marek Vasut
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-09 23:29 ` [PATCH 5/5] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio() Marek Vasut
@ 2011-01-10 22:40 ` Eric Miao
4 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2011-01-10 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Applied.
> ---
> ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c | ? ?4 ++--
> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c
> index c87f2b3..29830a3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c
> @@ -830,8 +830,8 @@ static void __init zeus_init(void)
> ? ? ? ?pr_info("Zeus CPLD V%dI%d\n", (system_rev & 0xf0) >> 4, (system_rev & 0x0f));
>
> ? ? ? ?/* Fix timings for dm9000s (CS1/CS2)*/
> - ? ? ? msc0 = __raw_readl(MSC0) & 0x0000ffff | (dm9000_msc << 16);
> - ? ? ? msc1 = __raw_readl(MSC1) & 0xffff0000 | dm9000_msc;
> + ? ? ? msc0 = (__raw_readl(MSC0) & 0x0000ffff) | (dm9000_msc << 16);
> + ? ? ? msc1 = (__raw_readl(MSC1) & 0xffff0000) | dm9000_msc;
> ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(msc0, MSC0);
> ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(msc1, MSC1);
>
> --
> 1.7.2.3
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread