From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rmallon@gmail.com (Ryan Mallon) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:22:39 +1100 Subject: [PATCH v2 02/19] ARM: at91/at91x40: remove use of at91_sys_read/write In-Reply-To: References: <1329903585-30738-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> Message-ID: <4F456AAF.3090809@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 22/02/12 20:39, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre > --- > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c | 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40_time.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- > arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91x40.h | 18 +++++++++--------- > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c > index 0154b7f..5400a1d 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91x40.c > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static void at91x40_idle(void) > * Disable the processor clock. The processor will be automatically > * re-enabled by an interrupt or by a reset. > */ > - at91_sys_write(AT91_PS_CR, AT91_PS_CR_CPU); > + __raw_writel(AT91_PS_CR_CPU, AT91_PS_CR); This doesn't seem to be equivalent, at91_sys_write does: void __iomem *addr = (void __iomem *)AT91_VA_BASE_SYS; __raw_writel(value, addr + reg_offset); and this patch doesn't redefine AT91_PS_CR. Was it broken before this patch? What am I missing? ~Ryan