Hello Haavard,
> I don't think so, but I don't feel all that strongly about it. I'd
> actually prefer if we used at_writel() and at_readl() throughout the
> code and killed those UART_PUT/UART_GET macros.
I completely agree.
Kind Regards,
Remy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:08:05 +0200
"Andrew Victor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #define at_readl(port, off) __raw_readl((port)->membase + (off))
> > #define at_writel(v, port, off) __raw_writel(v, (port)->membase + (off))
> >
> > #define UART_PUT_CR(port, v)at_writel(v, port,
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:49:32 +
Russell King - ARM Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:56:30PM +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > > > +#define lread(port) __raw_readl(port)
> > > > +#define lwrite(v, port) __raw_writel(v, port)
> > >
> > > Why is this
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:49:32 +
Russell King - ARM Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:56:30PM +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
+#define lread(port) __raw_readl(port)
+#define lwrite(v, port) __raw_writel(v, port)
Why is this necessary, and
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:08:05 +0200
Andrew Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#define at_readl(port, off) __raw_readl((port)-membase + (off))
#define at_writel(v, port, off) __raw_writel(v, (port)-membase + (off))
#define UART_PUT_CR(port, v)at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_CR)
#define
Hello Haavard,
I don't think so, but I don't feel all that strongly about it. I'd
actually prefer if we used at_writel() and at_readl() throughout the
code and killed those UART_PUT/UART_GET macros.
I completely agree.
Kind Regards,
Remy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hello Haavard,
> > Yep. All calls that block on a Mutex somehow on Preempt-RT. (such as
> > spinlocks, wakeup_interruptible() and many of its friends.)
> Right. Looks like the DMA patch call these functions from irq context
> too...I guess it'll need the same treatment?
That is correct. DMA code
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:56:30PM +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > > +#define lread(port) __raw_readl(port)
> > > +#define lwrite(v, port) __raw_writel(v, port)
> >
> > Why is this necessary, and what does 'l' stand for?
>
> There is a huge list of macros below these
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:56:30 +0100
"Remy Bohmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Btw, it would be nice if patches that affect more or less
> > architecture-independent drivers were posted to linux-kernel (added
> > to Cc.)
>
> Not really architecture independant, I believe, because thos are
>
Hello Haavard,
> I'll give it a shot, but first I have some comments on your other
> patches.
Good news someone is working on this bug again. Also good news you
already found a bug in there.
> Btw, it would be nice if patches that affect more or less
> architecture-independent drivers were
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:17:01 +0100
Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) NEW: optional: add-atmel-serial-dma.patch, this merged the DMA
> > code (from Chip Coldwell) in your 2.6.23 patch back on top of this
> > series. Because the AT32 bug is not been fixed for a very long time, I
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:46:09 +0100
"Remy Bohmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> So, to come to a conclusion about this complex patch series, I
> attached all the latest versions to this mail. The latest patches from
> yesterday including inline are also included to make the set
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:46:09 +0100
Remy Bohmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Andrew,
So, to come to a conclusion about this complex patch series, I
attached all the latest versions to this mail. The latest patches from
yesterday including inline are also included to make the set complete.
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:17:01 +0100
Haavard Skinnemoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) NEW: optional: add-atmel-serial-dma.patch, this merged the DMA
code (from Chip Coldwell) in your 2.6.23 patch back on top of this
series. Because the AT32 bug is not been fixed for a very long time, I
do
Hello Haavard,
I'll give it a shot, but first I have some comments on your other
patches.
Good news someone is working on this bug again. Also good news you
already found a bug in there.
Btw, it would be nice if patches that affect more or less
architecture-independent drivers were posted
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:56:30 +0100
Remy Bohmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, it would be nice if patches that affect more or less
architecture-independent drivers were posted to linux-kernel (added
to Cc.)
Not really architecture independant, I believe, because thos are
drivers for
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:56:30PM +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
+#define lread(port) __raw_readl(port)
+#define lwrite(v, port) __raw_writel(v, port)
Why is this necessary, and what does 'l' stand for?
There is a huge list of macros below these definitions. By doing
Hello Haavard,
Yep. All calls that block on a Mutex somehow on Preempt-RT. (such as
spinlocks, wakeup_interruptible() and many of its friends.)
Right. Looks like the DMA patch call these functions from irq context
too...I guess it'll need the same treatment?
That is correct. DMA code does
18 matches
Mail list logo
