[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimvMz6EJcCPjhVq5u8x3BWjCCgspbjfa0DQXJr-@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:14:12 +0300
From: Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
vt8500-wm8505-linux-kernel@...glegroups.com,
Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v6] ARM: Add basic architecture support for
VIA/WonderMedia 85xx SoC's
> Russell, could you please elaborate on your comment regarding spinlocks
> and irq handlers? I always compile my kernel with all kinds of lock
> debugging, and have not run into any associated warnings. Is there
> anything suspicious specifically?
My fault: actually, those were not all lock debugging functions. It
really prints errors when lock correctness proving is enabled. I thus
decided to just assign the callback functions directly to irq_desc
struct fields, as it is done in mach-msm.
There is, however, another error showing up: it complains about my use
of ioremap inside arch_reset(). Is it fine to just hardcode the
virtual address of the respective register and use that directly in
this case? Something along the lines of:
/* PM Software Reset request register */
#define VT8500_PMSR_VIRT 0xf8130060
static inline void arch_reset(char mode, const char *cmd)
{
writel(1, VT8500_PMSR_VIRT);
}
Thanks,
Alexey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists