From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:41:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: mx28evk: add platform data for saif In-Reply-To: <65EE16ACC360FA4D99C96DC085B3F77223C8CB@039-SN1MPN1-003.039d.mgd.msft.net> References: <1315403858-9904-1-git-send-email-b29396@freescale.com> <1315403858-9904-2-git-send-email-b29396@freescale.com> <20110907181811.GX28816@pengutronix.de> <65EE16ACC360FA4D99C96DC085B3F77223C8CB@039-SN1MPN1-003.039d.mgd.msft.net> Message-ID: <20110909134105.GT1912@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > > +static unsigned int saif_clkmux; Can't we just read the register in get_master and spare the static variable? > > and is it intended that if you do: > > > > mxs_saif_clkmux_select(1); > > mxs_saif_clkmux_select(2); > > > > the SAIF_CLKMUX_SEL bitfield ends up being 3? > Yes, it ends up being 3. Needs to be fixed, of course. The function will need locking then. > > > extern const struct mxs_saif_data mx28_saif_data[] __initconst; > > > -#define mx28_add_saif(id) > > mxs_add_saif(&mx28_saif_data[id]) > > > +#define mx28_add_saif(id, pdata) \ > > > + mxs_add_saif(&mx28_saif_data[id], pdata) > > should it be a seperate patch to add pdata for saif devices? > How do you suggest to separate? > All changes are mainly to add saif pdata. > You mean to move DIGCTL related saif pdata function to another patch? I think he meant one patch for adding the functions in clock-mx28.c and one patch to use the stuff when adding the pdata. Uwe? Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: