From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from muin.pair.com (muin.pair.com [209.68.1.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED2541A0023 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 16:16:09 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: fsl_ssi: remove register defaults To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" Cc: Fabio Estevam , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Nicolin Chen , Xiubo Li , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , linux-kernel References: <5677107C.60904@maciej.szmigiero.name> <5693B4C1.4060400@maciej.szmigiero.name> <569AD8A7.7080803@maciej.szmigiero.name> <569ADC0D.2000807@tabi.org> <569AE7D1.6050607@maciej.szmigiero.name> From: Timur Tabi Message-ID: <569B23A8.3010006@tabi.org> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 23:16:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <569AE7D1.6050607@maciej.szmigiero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > This is because (at least according to the datasheet) imx21-class SSI > registers end at CCSR_SSI_SRMSK (no SACC{ST,EN,DIS} regs), so > reading them for cache initialization may not be safe. > > Also, a "MXC 91221 only" comment before these regs in FSL tree > (drivers/mxc/ssi/registers.h) seems to confirm that these registers > aren't present at least on some SSI (or SoC) models. Can't we just mark them as precious or something, so that we don't have to have two structures?