[PATCH 1/5 resend] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c

[PATCH 1/5 resend] pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c

[Marek Vasut]

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
 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

[PATCH 2/5 resend] pxa: Remove unused variable in clock-pxa3xx.c

[Marek Vasut]

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

[PATCH 3/5 resend] ARM: pxa: Use cpu_has_ipr() consistently in irq.c

[Marek Vasut]

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

[PATCH 4/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation

[Marek Vasut]

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergei

 arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c |    8 ++++----
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
index 78f0e0c..a7deff5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
 		0x40d00130,
 	};
 
-	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i >> 5]);
+	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
 }
 
 void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
 	pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr;
 
 	for (n = 0; n < irq_nr; n += 32) {
-		void __iomem *base = irq_base(n);
+		void __iomem *base = irq_base(n >> 5);
 
 		__raw_writel(0, base + ICMR);	/* disable all IRQs */
 		__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);	/* all IRQs are IRQ, not FIQ */
@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ 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) {
+	for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
 		void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
 
 		saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
 {
 	int i;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
+	for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
 		void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
 
 		__raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
-- 
1.7.2.3

[PATCH 4/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation

[Eric Miao]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergei
>
> ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? ?8 ++++----
> ?1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index 78f0e0c..a7deff5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x40d00130,
> ? ? ? ?};
>
> - ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i >> 5]);
> + ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> ?}
>
> ?void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
> ? ? ? ?pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr;
>
> ? ? ? ?for (n = 0; n < irq_nr; n += 32) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n);
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n >> 5);
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICMR); ? /* disable all IRQs */
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR); ? /* all IRQs are IRQ, not FIQ */
> @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ 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) {
> + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);

I prefer it to be IRQ number based instead of IRQ bank based,
in other word, I'd rather to change the statement below:

>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);

to something:

saved_icmr[i / 32] = __raw_read(base + ICMR);

> @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> ?{
> ? ? ? ?int i;
>
> - ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
> --
> 1.7.2.3
>
>

[PATCH 4/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation

[Marek Vasut]

On Tuesday 11 January 2011 00:41:26 Eric Miao wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergei
> > 
> >  arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c |    8 ++++----
> >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > index 78f0e0c..a7deff5 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> >                0x40d00130,
> >        };
> > 
> > -       return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i >> 5]);
> > +       return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> >  }
> > 
> >  void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
> > @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
> >        pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr;
> > 
> >        for (n = 0; n < irq_nr; n += 32) {
> > -               void __iomem *base = irq_base(n);
> > +               void __iomem *base = irq_base(n >> 5);
> > 
> >                __raw_writel(0, base + ICMR);   /* disable all IRQs */
> >                __raw_writel(0, base + ICLR);   /* all IRQs are IRQ, not
> > FIQ */ @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ 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) {
> > +       for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
> >                void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> 
> I prefer it to be IRQ number based instead of IRQ bank based,
> 
> in other word, I'd rather to change the statement below:
> >                saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
> 
> to something:
> 
> saved_icmr[i / 32] = __raw_read(base + ICMR);

Exactly what I wanted to avoid ... won't you be doing a division "# of bank"-
times instead of once there ?

> 
> > @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> >  {
> >        int i;
> > 
> > -       for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
> > +       for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
> >                void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
> > 
> >                __raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
> > --
> > 1.7.2.3

[PATCH 4/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation

[Eric Miao]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 January 2011 00:41:26 Eric Miao wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergei
>> >
>> > ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? ?8 ++++----
>> > ?1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
>> > index 78f0e0c..a7deff5 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
>> > @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x40d00130,
>> > ? ? ? ?};
>> >
>> > - ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i >> 5]);
>> > + ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
>> > ?}
>> >
>> > ?void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
>> > @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
>> > ? ? ? ?pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr;
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?for (n = 0; n < irq_nr; n += 32) {
>> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n);
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n >> 5);
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICMR); ? /* disable all IRQs */
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR); ? /* all IRQs are IRQ, not
>> > FIQ */ @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ 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) {
>> > + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
>>
>> I prefer it to be IRQ number based instead of IRQ bank based,
>>
>> in other word, I'd rather to change the statement below:
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
>>
>> to something:
>>
>> saved_icmr[i / 32] = __raw_read(base + ICMR);
>
> Exactly what I wanted to avoid ... won't you be doing a division "# of bank"-
> times instead of once there ?
>

I'm fine with either way. Applied.

>>
>> > @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
>> > ?{
>> > ? ? ? ?int i;
>> >
>> > - ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
>> > + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) {
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR);
>> > --
>> > 1.7.2.3
>

[PATCH 5/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()

[Marek Vasut]

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei

 arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c |    8 ++------
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
index a7deff5..76e69cf 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
@@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
 
 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

[PATCH 5/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()

[Eric Miao]

The original intention is to re-use pxa_{mask,unmask}_irq(), will
the change below looks better? The move of irq_base() is to avoid
the error of function not declared.

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
index a7deff5..6107253 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
@@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static inline int cpu_has_ipr(void)
 	return !cpu_is_pxa25x();
 }

+static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
+{
+	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
+		0x40d00000,
+		0x40d0009c,
+		0x40d00130,
+	};
+
+	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
+}
+
 static void pxa_mask_irq(unsigned int irq)
 {
 	void __iomem *base = get_irq_chip_data(irq);
@@ -108,25 +119,11 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
 	GEDR0 = (1 << (irq - IRQ_GPIO0));
 }

-static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
-{
-	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
-
-	desc->chip->mask(irq);
-}
-
-static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
-{
-	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
-
-	desc->chip->unmask(irq);
-}
-
 static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
 	.name		= "GPIO-l",
 	.ack		= pxa_ack_low_gpio,
-	.mask		= pxa_mask_low_gpio,
-	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_low_gpio,
+	.mask		= pxa_mask_irq,
+	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_irq,
 	.set_type	= pxa_set_low_gpio_type,
 };

@@ -141,6 +138,7 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)

 	for (irq = IRQ_GPIO0; irq <= IRQ_GPIO1; irq++) {
 		set_irq_chip(irq, &pxa_low_gpio_chip);
+		set_irq_chip_data(irq, irq_base(0));
 		set_irq_handler(irq, handle_edge_irq);
 		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
 	}
@@ -148,17 +146,6 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)
 	pxa_low_gpio_chip.set_wake = fn;
 }

-static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
-{
-	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
-		0x40d00000,
-		0x40d0009c,
-		0x40d00130,
-	};
-
-	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
-}
-
 void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
 {
 	int irq, i, n;

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei
>
> ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? ?8 ++------
> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index a7deff5..76e69cf 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
>
> ?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
>
>

[PATCH 5/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday 12 January 2011 00:16:50 Eric Miao wrote:
> The original intention is to re-use pxa_{mask,unmask}_irq(), will
> the change below looks better? The move of irq_base() is to avoid
> the error of function not declared.
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index a7deff5..6107253 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static inline int cpu_has_ipr(void)
>  	return !cpu_is_pxa25x();
>  }
> 
> +static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> +{
> +	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
> +		0x40d00000,
> +		0x40d0009c,
> +		0x40d00130,
> +	};
> +
> +	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> +}
> +
>  static void pxa_mask_irq(unsigned int irq)
>  {
>  	void __iomem *base = get_irq_chip_data(irq);
> @@ -108,25 +119,11 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
>  	GEDR0 = (1 << (irq - IRQ_GPIO0));
>  }
> 
> -static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> -{
> -	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> -
> -	desc->chip->mask(irq);
> -}
> -
> -static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> -{
> -	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> -
> -	desc->chip->unmask(irq);
> -}
> -
>  static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
>  	.name		= "GPIO-l",
>  	.ack		= pxa_ack_low_gpio,
> -	.mask		= pxa_mask_low_gpio,
> -	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_low_gpio,
> +	.mask		= pxa_mask_irq,
> +	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_irq,
>  	.set_type	= pxa_set_low_gpio_type,
>  };
> 
> @@ -141,6 +138,7 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)
> 
>  	for (irq = IRQ_GPIO0; irq <= IRQ_GPIO1; irq++) {
>  		set_irq_chip(irq, &pxa_low_gpio_chip);
> +		set_irq_chip_data(irq, irq_base(0));
>  		set_irq_handler(irq, handle_edge_irq);
>  		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
>  	}
> @@ -148,17 +146,6 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t
> fn) pxa_low_gpio_chip.set_wake = fn;
>  }
> 
> -static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> -{
> -	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
> -		0x40d00000,
> -		0x40d0009c,
> -		0x40d00130,
> -	};
> -
> -	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> -}
> -
>  void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
>  {
>  	int irq, i, n;

Way better indeed

Acked-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>

> 
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei
> > 
> >  arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c |    8 ++------
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > index a7deff5..76e69cf 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > @@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> > 
> >  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

[PATCH 5/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday 12 January 2011 00:16:50 Eric Miao wrote:
> The original intention is to re-use pxa_{mask,unmask}_irq(), will
> the change below looks better? The move of irq_base() is to avoid
> the error of function not declared.

Here's your :

Tested-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>

Tested on Zipit Z2
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index a7deff5..6107253 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static inline int cpu_has_ipr(void)
>  	return !cpu_is_pxa25x();
>  }
> 
> +static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> +{
> +	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
> +		0x40d00000,
> +		0x40d0009c,
> +		0x40d00130,
> +	};
> +
> +	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> +}
> +
>  static void pxa_mask_irq(unsigned int irq)
>  {
>  	void __iomem *base = get_irq_chip_data(irq);
> @@ -108,25 +119,11 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
>  	GEDR0 = (1 << (irq - IRQ_GPIO0));
>  }
> 
> -static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> -{
> -	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> -
> -	desc->chip->mask(irq);
> -}
> -
> -static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> -{
> -	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> -
> -	desc->chip->unmask(irq);
> -}
> -
>  static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
>  	.name		= "GPIO-l",
>  	.ack		= pxa_ack_low_gpio,
> -	.mask		= pxa_mask_low_gpio,
> -	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_low_gpio,
> +	.mask		= pxa_mask_irq,
> +	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_irq,
>  	.set_type	= pxa_set_low_gpio_type,
>  };
> 
> @@ -141,6 +138,7 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)
> 
>  	for (irq = IRQ_GPIO0; irq <= IRQ_GPIO1; irq++) {
>  		set_irq_chip(irq, &pxa_low_gpio_chip);
> +		set_irq_chip_data(irq, irq_base(0));
>  		set_irq_handler(irq, handle_edge_irq);
>  		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
>  	}
> @@ -148,17 +146,6 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t
> fn) pxa_low_gpio_chip.set_wake = fn;
>  }
> 
> -static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> -{
> -	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
> -		0x40d00000,
> -		0x40d0009c,
> -		0x40d00130,
> -	};
> -
> -	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> -}
> -
>  void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
>  {
>  	int irq, i, n;
> 
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei
> > 
> >  arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c |    8 ++------
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > index a7deff5..76e69cf 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > @@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> > 
> >  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

[PATCH 5/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 11-01-2011 1:53, Marek Vasut wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut<marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei

>   arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c |    8 ++------
>   1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index a7deff5..76e69cf 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
>
>   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 = {

    If the above two functions are the methods of this IRQ chip, shouldn't you 
just replace the initializers and remove the functions altogether?

WBR, Sergei