[PATCH 4/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
Eric Miao
eric.y.miao at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 18:41:26 EST 2011
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at 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
>
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list