[PATCH v2 02/19] ARM: at91/at91x40: remove use of at91_sys_read/write
Ryan Mallon
rmallon at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 17:22:39 EST 2012
On 22/02/12 20:39, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre at atmel.com>
> ---
> 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
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list