On 2017-06-02 23:59, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 06/01, [email protected] wrote:>>@@ -209,23 +210,24 @@ static void pa_read_data(struct >>spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc) >> * @buf: buffer to write. length must be bc + 1. >> */ >> static void >>-pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, const u8 *buf, u32 >>reg, u8 bc) >>+pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, const u8 *buf, u32 reg, >>u8 bc) >> { >> u32 data = 0; >>+ >> memcpy(&data, buf, (bc & 3) + 1); >>- __raw_writel(data, dev->wr_base + reg); >>+ pmic_arb_base_write(pa, reg, data); > >This is an unrelated change. Not sure what's going on with this >diff but we most likely want to keep the __raw_writel() here. See >how renames introduce bugs and why we don't value them? > Actually pmic_arb_base_write has the writel_relaxed inside it. that's why we removed the __raw_writel to use the common function. Anyways, we drop the renaming patch from this patch series.__raw_writel() is there on purpose because we're reading bytes at a time and the CPU could be big-endian or little-endian. readl_relaxed() would do a byte swap which we don't want.
ok. Thanks for clarifying it. We do not remove the __raw_writel.
