[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Jiandong Zheng]

Fix bcmring UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

In 888073d41680e8244232f3d850e0424a4e9de60f, bcmring UART declaration
was fixed but introduced clk dev name mismatch which leads to UART 
initialization
failure during boot.

Signed-off-by: Jiandong Zheng <jdzheng@broadcom.com>
---
  arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c |    4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
index adbfb19..5559857 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
@@ -110,10 +110,10 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
          .con_id = "apb_pclk",
          .clk = &dummy_apb_pclk,
      }, {            /* UART0 */
-        .dev_id = "uarta",
+        .dev_id = "uartA",
          .clk = &uart_clk,
      }, {            /* UART1 */
-        .dev_id = "uartb",
+        .dev_id = "uartB",
          .clk = &uart_clk,
      }, {            /* SP804 timer 0 */
          .dev_id = "sp804",
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 01-05-2012 23:44, Jiandong Zheng wrote:

> Fix bcmring UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

> In 888073d41680e8244232f3d850e0424a4e9de60f,

    Please also specify that commit's summary in parens.

> bcmring UART declaration
> was fixed but introduced clk dev name mismatch which leads to UART initialization
> failure during boot.

> Signed-off-by: Jiandong Zheng <jdzheng@broadcom.com>

WBR, Sergei

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Jiandong Zheng]

Fix bcmring UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

With 888073d41680e8244232f3d850e0424a4e9de60f (ARM:
bcmring: fix UART declarations), it introduced clk dev name
mismatch and leads to UART initialization failure during boot.

Signed-off-by: Jiandong Zheng <jdzheng@broadcom.com>
---
   arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c |    4 ++--
   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
index adbfb19..5559857 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
@@ -110,10 +110,10 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
           .con_id = "apb_pclk",
           .clk = &dummy_apb_pclk,
       }, {            /* UART0 */
-        .dev_id = "uarta",
+        .dev_id = "uartA",
           .clk = &uart_clk,
       }, {            /* UART1 */
-        .dev_id = "uartb",
+        .dev_id = "uartB",
           .clk = &uart_clk,
       }, {            /* SP804 timer 0 */
           .dev_id = "sp804",
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Jiandong Zheng]

Fix bcmring UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

With 888073d41680e8244232f3d850e0424a4e9de60f (ARM:
bcmring: fix UART declarations), it introduced clk dev name
mismatch and leads to UART initialization failure during boot.

Signed-off-by: Jiandong Zheng<jdzheng@broadcom.com  <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel>>
---
   arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c |    4 ++--
   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
index adbfb19..5559857 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
@@ -110,10 +110,10 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
           .con_id = "apb_pclk",
           .clk =&dummy_apb_pclk,
       }, {            /* UART0 */
-        .dev_id = "uarta",
+        .dev_id = "uartA",
           .clk =&uart_clk,
       }, {            /* UART1 */
-        .dev_id = "uartb",
+        .dev_id = "uartB",
           .clk =&uart_clk,
       }, {            /* SP804 timer 0 */
           .dev_id = "sp804",
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Paul Gortmaker]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jiandong Zheng <jdzheng@broadcom.com> wrote:
> Fix bcmring UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch
>
> With 888073d41680e8244232f3d850e0424a4e9de60f (ARM:
> bcmring: fix UART declarations), it introduced clk dev name
> mismatch and leads to UART initialization failure during boot.

Do things work if you simply do a partial revert of 888073d41 ?

Meaning:

-static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uartA", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
-static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartB", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);
+static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uarta", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
+static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartb", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);

The original error messages led me to believe it was two errors;
i.e. (1) the wrong # of args error, and (2) the "a" vs. "A" error.  But
I think Olof was right on his 1st instinct, that it was just the
single error, and the a <---> A thing was a side effect.

In which case the above should just work, and it will also keep
the naming consistent with what it was before any of these
commits.

Paul.
--

>
> Signed-off-by: Jiandong Zheng<jdzheng@broadcom.com
> ?<http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel>>
> ---
> ?arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c | ? ?4 ++--
> ?1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
> index adbfb19..5559857 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
> @@ -110,10 +110,10 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
> ? ? ? ? ?.con_id = "apb_pclk",
> ? ? ? ? ?.clk =&dummy_apb_pclk,
> ? ? ?}, { ? ? ? ? ? ?/* UART0 */
> - ? ? ? ?.dev_id = "uarta",
> + ? ? ? ?.dev_id = "uartA",
> ? ? ? ? ?.clk =&uart_clk,
> ? ? ?}, { ? ? ? ? ? ?/* UART1 */
> - ? ? ? ?.dev_id = "uartb",
> + ? ? ? ?.dev_id = "uartB",
> ? ? ? ? ?.clk =&uart_clk,
> ? ? ?}, { ? ? ? ? ? ?/* SP804 timer 0 */
> ? ? ? ? ?.dev_id = "sp804",
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Jiandong Zheng]

On 5/7/2012 2:39 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
> Do things work if you simply do a partial revert of 888073d41 ?
>
> Meaning:
>
> -static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uartA", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
> -static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartB", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);
> +static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uarta", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
> +static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartb", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);
>
> The original error messages led me to believe it was two errors;
> i.e. (1) the wrong # of args error, and (2) the "a" vs. "A" error.  But
> I think Olof was right on his 1st instinct, that it was just the
> single error, and the a<--->  A thing was a side effect.
>
> In which case the above should just work, and it will also keep
> the naming consistent with what it was before any of these
> commits.
Yes.  Either way works. Just in original code, the name uartA and the 
name string "uarta" looks confusing and easy to get it wrong.

Thanks,
JD
>
> Paul.
> --
>

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Paul Gortmaker]

[Re: [PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch] On 07/05/2012 (Mon 14:50) Jiandong Zheng wrote:

> On 5/7/2012 2:39 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >
> >Do things work if you simply do a partial revert of 888073d41 ?
> >
> >Meaning:
> >
> >-static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uartA", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
> >-static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartB", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);
> >+static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uarta", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
> >+static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartb", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);
> >
> >The original error messages led me to believe it was two errors;
> >i.e. (1) the wrong # of args error, and (2) the "a" vs. "A" error.  But
> >I think Olof was right on his 1st instinct, that it was just the
> >single error, and the a<--->  A thing was a side effect.
> >
> >In which case the above should just work, and it will also keep
> >the naming consistent with what it was before any of these
> >commits.
> Yes.  Either way works. Just in original code, the name uartA and
> the name string "uarta" looks confusing and easy to get it wrong.

Agreed, as it confused me as well.  But I don't want to break any
existing userspace.  So if people expect the name "uarta" and the
name "uartb" then we really should go with that.  But I have no
insight into the use case or userspace.  So I leave that part of
the input up to you.

Thanks,
Paul.

> 
> Thanks,
> JD
> >
> >Paul.
> >--
> >
> 
> 

[PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch

[Jiandong Zheng]

On 07/05/12 16:00, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: [PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch] On 07/05/2012 (Mon 14:50) Jiandong Zheng wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2012 2:39 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>> Do things work if you simply do a partial revert of 888073d41 ?
>>>
>>> Meaning:
>>>
>>> -static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uartA", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
>>> -static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartB", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);
>>> +static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uarta", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL);
>>> +static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartb", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL);
>>>
>>> The original error messages led me to believe it was two errors;
>>> i.e. (1) the wrong # of args error, and (2) the "a" vs. "A" error.  But
>>> I think Olof was right on his 1st instinct, that it was just the
>>> single error, and the a<--->   A thing was a side effect.
>>>
>>> In which case the above should just work, and it will also keep
>>> the naming consistent with what it was before any of these
>>> commits.
>> Yes.  Either way works. Just in original code, the name uartA and
>> the name string "uarta" looks confusing and easy to get it wrong.
> Agreed, as it confused me as well.  But I don't want to break any
> existing userspace.  So if people expect the name "uarta" and the
> name "uartb" then we really should go with that.  But I have no
> insight into the use case or userspace.  So I leave that part of
> the input up to you.
I don't see user space has direct usage of these strings and the console 
runs fine so that it should be safe.

Thanks,
JD

>
> Thanks,
> Paul.
>
>> Thanks,
>> JD
>>> Paul.
>>> --
>>>
>>