[PATCH 4/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation

[Eric Miao]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 January 2011 00:41:26 Eric Miao wrote:
>> 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);
>
> Exactly what I wanted to avoid ... won't you be doing a division "# of bank"-
> times instead of once there ?
>

I'm fine with either way. Applied.

>>
>> > @@ -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
>