On 04/17/2014 05:03 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:56:15PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Thursday 17 April 2014 05:52 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Currently we use __raw_readl and writel in this driver,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:16:28AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 04/17/2014 05:03 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:56:15PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Thursday 17 April 2014 05:52 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Nishanth
On 10:09-20140421, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:16:28AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 04/17/2014 05:03 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:56:15PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Thursday 17 April 2014 05:52 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On
Currently we use __raw_readl and writel in this driver, however, there
is no strict sequencing needs for this driver, hence we should be good
with the relaxed variants.
While at it, simplify address computation using variables for register.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com
---
V2: no
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Currently we use __raw_readl and writel in this driver, however, there
__raw_* and *_relaxed variants are the same, just have a look asm/io.h
297 #define readb_relaxed(c) ({ u8 __r = __raw_readb(c); __r; })
298 #define
On Thursday 17 April 2014 05:52 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Currently we use __raw_readl and writel in this driver, however, there
__raw_* and *_relaxed variants are the same, just have a look asm/io.h
Except the relaxed
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:56:15PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Thursday 17 April 2014 05:52 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Currently we use __raw_readl and writel in this driver, however, there
__raw_* and *_relaxed