Hi Olof,
thank you very much for having a look.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:52:33PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
Overall this driver looks like it just needs more cooking
time. It's... gritty. Complicated when it should be simple and
layered. Naming is nonobvious, and overall it's hard
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 23:52 +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
+ reg = 0 0x7FFF 0 0x1000;
#size-cells 2 on the parent bus? That's somewhat unusual.
LPAE == 40 bit physical addresses == potential 32 bit sizes (memory
blocks 4GB)
Paweł
___
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:04:00PM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 23:52 +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
+ reg = 0 0x7FFF 0 0x1000;
#size-cells 2 on the parent bus? That's somewhat unusual.
LPAE == 40 bit physical addresses == potential 32 bit sizes (memory
Hi Samuel,
first things first, thanks a lot for having a look.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 01:01:43AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
Hi Lorenzo,
I don't particularily like this code, but I guess most of my dislike
comes from the whole bridge interface API and how that forces you into
implementing
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Olof Johansson wrote:
+ u32 status = readl_relaxed(info-baseaddr + PWC_STATUS);
Why readl_relaxed() here? Can't you use a normal readl()?
Unfortunately, on ARM readl_relaxed() _is_ the normal readl() because
the actual readl() may have side effects. See commit
Hi Lorenzo,
I don't particularily like this code, but I guess most of my dislike
comes from the whole bridge interface API and how that forces you into
implementing pretty much static code.
A few nitpicks:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:59:23AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
diff --git
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
+static struct vexpress_spc_drvdata *info;
+static u32 *vexpress_spc_config_data;
+static struct vexpress_config_bridge *vexpress_spc_config_bridge;
+static struct vexpress_config_func *opp_func, *perf_func;
+
+static int
