[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJgR-BhgZ7k_Uk_Md79pkZKQXTZUjspqq0u9sa9D69Kixy7DhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:00:40 -0500
From: Jon Loeliger <loeliger@...il.com>
To: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: mm: cache-l2x0: Add base address argument to
write_sec callback
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
> index 060a75e..ddaebcd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
> @@ -46,7 +46,8 @@ struct machine_desc {
> enum reboot_mode reboot_mode; /* default restart mode */
> unsigned l2c_aux_val; /* L2 cache aux value */
> unsigned l2c_aux_mask; /* L2 cache aux mask */
> - void (*l2c_write_sec)(unsigned long, unsigned);
> + void (*l2c_write_sec)(void __iomem *,
> + unsigned long, unsigned);
> struct smp_operations *smp; /* SMP operations */
> bool (*smp_init)(void);
> void (*fixup)(struct tag *, char **);
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> index efc5cab..1695eab 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static void l2c_write_sec(unsigned long val, void __iomem *base, unsigned reg)
> if (val == readl_relaxed(base + reg))
> return;
> if (outer_cache.write_sec)
> - outer_cache.write_sec(val, reg);
> + outer_cache.write_sec(base, val, reg);
> else
> writel_relaxed(val, base + reg);
> }
The parameter order (base, val, reg) seems very non-intuitive.
Are you matching some existing prototype or adhering to some
backwards compatibility issue? If not wouldn't, say, (base, reg, val)
or (val, base, reg) be more intuitive?
Thanks,
jdl
--
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