From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "OMAP: mach-omap2: Fix incorrect assignment warnings" Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:47:38 -0700 Message-ID: <87eic0ti7p.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <87y6a8v48p.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:35673 "EHLO mail-px0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752635Ab0JHWrl (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:47:41 -0400 Received: by pxi15 with SMTP id 15so328724pxi.19 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:47:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87y6a8v48p.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (Kevin Hilman's message of "Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:06:30 -0700") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Pihet Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" Kevin Hilman writes: > Jean Pihet writes: > >> This patch reverts commit 914bab936fe0388a529079679e2f137aa4ff548d, which >> breaks the OFF mode on the OMAP3 platforms. >> The details are here below. >> >> The intent behind the original patch was to fix some compiler >> warnings, which I do not have on my side. Is the problem dependent on >> the setup and config used? > >> From ec85bc90978cf0f257e73eaad593ffb774595863 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Jean Pihet >> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:36:48 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "OMAP: mach-omap2: Fix incorrect assignment warnings" >> >> This reverts commit 914bab936fe0388a529079679e2f137aa4ff548d, which >> breaks the OFF mode on the OMAP3 platforms. >> >> The use of a void* pointer for scratchpad_address confuses the >> compiler which generates wrong offset for the access to the L4 >> address space. In that case an alignement fault is generated >> during the wake-up from OFF mode. >> >> The code that causes problem is: >> __raw_readl(scratchpad_address + OMAP343X_TABLE_ADDRESS_OFFSET); > > Thanks Jean for tracking down why off-mode was broken on the master > branch. > > I completely agree this patch should be reverted. However, the > description here could be a litle more descriptive. I changed my mind... Since only one part of the original patch introduced a bug, I decided to just fix that bug and keep the fixes for the sparse warnings. I just posted a patch[1] for the fix. Please test. Thanks, Kevin [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242661/