[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1aP0XnX+iM8L+OXCxonfE6pmN0+Kk6EVLNREkzme+YQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:14:57 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] ARM: sa1100/pxa: fix MTD_XIP build
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr> wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
>> -#define xip_irqpending() (ICIP & ICMR)
>> +/* restored July 2017, this did not build since 2011! */
>> +
>> +#define ICIP io_p2v(0x40d00000)
>> +#define ICMR io_p2v(0x40d00004)
> Okay, I suppose the IO mapping is guaranteed to work, ie. io_p2v() is behaving
> correctly when xip_irqpending() is used, right ? I'm not challenging this, I'm
> just ensuring this _could_ work (if anybody had the silly idea to make it work
> again, and I admit I don't have that much courage).
Good thinking ;-)
I double-checked this and found that it is correct, and we still map that memory
in the same place in pxa_map_io().
>> +#define xip_irqpending() readl(ICIP) & readl(ICMR)
> This is not strictly equivalent to (ICIP & ICMR), I would have put for priority
> reasons :
> +#define xip_irqpending() (readl(ICIP) & readl(ICMR))
Ok, I've changed that and will resend.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists