From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kgunda@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to
 spmi_pmic_arb
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:58:21 +0530
Message-ID: <937c6334af67f7ca263d4184039ee29e@codeaurora.org>
References: <1496147943-25822-1-git-send-email-kgunda@codeaurora.org>
 <1496147943-25822-3-git-send-email-kgunda@codeaurora.org>
 <20170531004637.GT20170@codeaurora.org>
 <2bfcb67b77b7bbd1eccd3aeaf11dc75d@codeaurora.org>
 <20170602182946.GO20170@codeaurora.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:33088 "EHLO
        smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751262AbdFEG21 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:28:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170602182946.GO20170@codeaurora.org>
Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@codeaurora.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@codeaurora.org>, Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, adharmap@quicinc.com, aghayal@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org

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.