pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c
Subsystems (3)
PATCH RESEND 1/5 pxa: Fix warning in zeus.c
--- arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-pxa/zeus.c +2 -2
@@ -830,8 +830,8 @@ static void __init zeus_init(void)pr_info ("Zeus CPLD V%dI%d\n" , (system_rev &0xf0 ) >>4 , (system_rev &0x0f ));/* Fix timings for dm9000s (CS1/CS2)*/ - msc0 =__raw_readl (MSC0 ) &0x0000ffff | (dm9000_msc <<16 ); - msc1 =__raw_readl (MSC1 ) &0xffff0000 | dm9000_msc; + msc0 = (__raw_readl (MSC0 ) &0x0000ffff ) | (dm9000_msc <<16 ); + msc1 = (__raw_readl (MSC1 ) &0xffff0000 ) | dm9000_msc;__raw_writel (msc0,MSC0 );__raw_writel (msc1,MSC1 );
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.3
PATCH RESEND 2/5 pxa: Remove unused variable in clock-pxa3xx.c
--- arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-pxa/clock-pxa3xx.c +0 -1
@@ -115,7 +115,6 @@ static unsigned long clk_pxa3xx_smemc_getrate(struct clk *clk) {unsigned long acsr =ACSR ;unsigned long memclkcfg =__raw_readl (MEMCLKCFG ); -unsigned int smcfs = (acsr >>23 ) &0x7 ;return BASE_CLK * smcfs_mult[(acsr >>23 ) &0x7 ] / df_clkdiv[(memclkcfg >>16 ) &0x3 ];
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.3
PATCH RESEND 3/5 ARM: pxa: Use cpu_has_ipr() consistently in irq.c
In reply to Marek Vasut--- arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1 -1
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev)__raw_writel (0 , base +ICLR ); } -if (!cpu_is_pxa25x ()) +if (cpu_has_ipr ())for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i++)__raw_writel (saved_ipr[i],IRQ_BASE +IPR (i));
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 4/5 ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
In reply to Marek Vasut---
v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergei
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 8 ++++---- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +4 -4
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i) 0x40d00130, }; -return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i >>5 ]); +return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); }void __init pxa_init_irq (int irq_nr,set_wake_t fn)
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn) pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr;for (n =0 ; n < irq_nr; n +=32 ) { -void __iomem *base =irq_base (n); +void __iomem *base =irq_base (n >>5 );__raw_writel (0 , base +ICMR );/* disable all IRQs */ __raw_writel (0 , base +ICLR );/* all IRQs are IRQ, not FIQ */
@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state) {int i; -for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i +=32 ) { +for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr /32 ; i++) {void __iomem *base =irq_base (i); saved_icmr[i] =__raw_readl (base +ICMR );
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev) {int i; -for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i +=32 ) { +for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr /32 ; i++) {void __iomem *base =irq_base (i);__raw_writel (saved_icmr[i], base +ICMR );
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 4/5 ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
Quoted 30 lines · Marek Vasut
Signed-off-by Marek Vasut <[email protected]>---
v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergei?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? ?8 ++++----
?1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +2
-2@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x40d00130, ? ? ? ?}; - ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i >> 5]); + ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]); ?} ?void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn) ? ? ? ?pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr; ? ? ? ?for (n = 0; n < irq_nr; n += 32) { - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n); + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n >> 5);? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICMR); ? /* disable all IRQs */ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR); ? /* all IRQs are IRQ, not FIQ */
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state) · line 204
Quoted 6 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1
-1@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state) ?{ ? ? ? ?int i; - ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) { + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) { ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void __iomem *base = irq_base(i);
I prefer it to be IRQ number based instead of IRQ bank based, in other word, I'd rather to change the statement below:
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state) · line 205
Quoted 2 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +0
-0? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);
to something:
saved_icmr[i / 32] = __raw_read(base + ICMR);
Quoted 13 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1
-2@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev) ?{ ? ? ? ?int i; - ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) { + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) { ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void __iomem *base = irq_base(i); ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR); --1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 4/5 ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
Quoted 40 lines · On Tuesday 11 January 2011 00:41:26 Eric Miao wrote:
Quoted 33 lines · Marek Vasut
Signed-off-by Marek Vasut <[email protected]>---
v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergeiarch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 8 ++++---- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +2
-2@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i) 0x40d00130, }; -return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i >>5 ]); +return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); }void __init pxa_init_irq (int irq_nr,set_wake_t fn)@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn) pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr;for (n =0 ; n < irq_nr; n +=32 ) { -void __iomem *base =irq_base (n); +void __iomem *base =irq_base (n >>5 );__raw_writel (0 , base +ICMR );/* disable all IRQs */ __raw_writel (0 , base +ICLR );/* all IRQs are IRQ, not FIQ */ @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct
sys_device*dev, pm_message_t state) { int i;arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c static int pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state) · line 204
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1
-1-for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i +=32 ) { +for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr /32 ; i++) {void __iomem *base =irq_base (i);I prefer it to be IRQ number based instead of IRQ bank based,
Quoted 6 lines
in other word, I'd rather to change the statement below:
Quoted 1 line
saved_icmr[i] = __raw_readl(base + ICMR);to something:
saved_icmr[i / 32] =
__raw_read(base + ICMR);
Exactly what I wanted to avoid ... won't you be doing a division "# of bank"- times instead of once there ?
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1
-2@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev) {int i; -for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i +=32 ) { +for (i =0 ; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr /32 ; i++) {void __iomem *base =irq_base (i);__raw_writel (saved_icmr[i], base +ICMR ); --1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 4/5 ARM: pxa: Fix suspend/resume array index miscalculation
Quoted 42 lines · Marek Vasut
Quoted 41 lines · On Tuesday 11 January 2011 00:41:26 Eric Miao wrote:
Quoted 33 lines · Marek Vasut
Signed-off-by Marek Vasut <[email protected]>---
v2: Fix loop condition as proposed by Sergei?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? ?8 ++++----
?1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +2
-2@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x40d00130, ? ? ? ?}; - ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i >> 5]); + ? ? ? return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]); ?} ?void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn) ? ? ? ?pxa_internal_irq_nr = irq_nr; ? ? ? ?for (n = 0; n < irq_nr; n += 32) { - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n); + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *base = irq_base(n >> 5);? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICMR); ? /* disable all IRQs */ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(0, base + ICLR); ? /* all IRQs are IRQ, not FIQ */ @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static int
pxa_irq_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state){
? ? ? ?int i;Quoted 3 lines
- ? ? ? for (i = 0; i <
pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) {
+ ? ? ? for (i = 0; i <pxa_internal_irq_nr/ 32; i++) { ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void__iomem*base =irq_base(i);I prefer it to be IRQ number based instead of IRQ bank based,
in other word, I'd rather to change the statement below:
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?saved_icmr[i] =
__raw_readl(base + ICMR);to something:
saved_icmr[i / 32] =
__raw_read(base + ICMR);Exactly what I wanted to avoid ... won't you be doing a division "# of bank"- times instead of once there ?
I'm fine with either way. Applied.
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1
-2@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int pxa_irq_resume(struct sys_device *dev) ?{ ? ? ? ?int i; - ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr; i += 32) { + ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < pxa_internal_irq_nr / 32; i++) { ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?void __iomem *base = irq_base(i); ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__raw_writel(saved_icmr[i], base + ICMR); --1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 5/5 ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
In reply to Marek Vasut---
v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 8 ++------ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +2 -6
@@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)static void pxa_mask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->mask (irq); +pxa_mask_irq (irq); }static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->unmask (irq); +pxa_unmask_irq (irq); }static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 5/5 ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
The original intention is to re-use pxa_{mask,unmask}_irq(), will the change below looks better? The move of irq_base() is to avoid the error of function not declared.
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +14 -27
@@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static inline int cpu_has_ipr(void)return !cpu_is_pxa25x (); } +static inline void __iomem *irq_base (int i) +{ +static unsigned long phys_base[] = { +0x40d00000 , +0x40d0009c , +0x40d00130 , + }; + +return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); +} +static void pxa_mask_irq (unsigned int irq) {void __iomem *base =get_irq_chip_data (irq);
@@ -108,25 +119,11 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)GEDR0 = (1 << (irq -IRQ_GPIO0 )); } -static void pxa_mask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) -{ -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->mask (irq); -} - -static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) -{ -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->unmask (irq); -} -static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = { .name ="GPIO-l" , .ack = pxa_ack_low_gpio, - .mask = pxa_mask_low_gpio, - .unmask = pxa_unmask_low_gpio, + .mask = pxa_mask_irq, + .unmask = pxa_unmask_irq, .set_type = pxa_set_low_gpio_type, };
@@ -141,6 +138,7 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)for (irq =IRQ_GPIO0 ; irq <=IRQ_GPIO1 ; irq++) {set_irq_chip (irq, &pxa_low_gpio_chip); +set_irq_chip_data (irq,irq_base (0 ));set_irq_handler (irq, handle_edge_irq);set_irq_flags (irq,IRQF_VALID ); }
@@ -148,17 +146,6 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn) pxa_low_gpio_chip.set_wake = fn; } -static inline void __iomem *irq_base (int i) -{ -static unsigned long phys_base[] = { -0x40d00000 , -0x40d0009c , -0x40d00130 , - }; - -return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); -} -void __init pxa_init_irq (int irq_nr,set_wake_t fn) {int irq, i, n;
Quoted 34 lines · Marek Vasut
Signed-off-by Marek Vasut <[email protected]>---
v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei?arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | ? ?8 ++------
?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +2
-7@@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq) ?static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq) ?{ - ? ? ? struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); - - ? ? ? desc->chip->mask(irq); + ? ? ? pxa_mask_irq(irq); ?} ?static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq) ?{ - ? ? ? struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); - - ? ? ? desc->chip->unmask(irq); + ? ? ? pxa_unmask_irq(irq); ?} ?static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = { --1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 5/5 ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
Quoted 70 lines · On Wednesday 12 January 2011 00:16:50 Eric Miao wrote:
The original intention is to re-use pxa_{mask,unmask}_irq(), will the change below looks better? The move of
irq_base()is to avoid the error of function not declared.arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +14
-20@@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static inline int cpu_has_ipr(void)return !cpu_is_pxa25x (); } +static inline void __iomem *irq_base (int i) +{ +static unsigned long phys_base[] = { +0x40d00000 , +0x40d0009c , +0x40d00130 , + }; + +return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); +} +static void pxa_mask_irq (unsigned int irq) {void __iomem *base =get_irq_chip_data (irq);@@ -108,25 +119,11 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)GEDR0 = (1 << (irq -IRQ_GPIO0 )); } -static void pxa_mask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) -{ -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->mask (irq); -} - -static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) -{ -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->unmask (irq); -} -static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = { .name ="GPIO-l" , .ack = pxa_ack_low_gpio, - .mask = pxa_mask_low_gpio, - .unmask = pxa_unmask_low_gpio, + .mask = pxa_mask_irq, + .unmask = pxa_unmask_irq, .set_type = pxa_set_low_gpio_type, };@@ -141,6 +138,7 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)for (irq =IRQ_GPIO0 ; irq <=IRQ_GPIO1 ; irq++) {set_irq_chip (irq, &pxa_low_gpio_chip); +set_irq_chip_data (irq,irq_base (0 ));set_irq_handler (irq, handle_edge_irq);set_irq_flags (irq,IRQF_VALID ); }@@ -148,17 +146,6 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn) pxa_low_gpio_chip.set_wake = fn; } -static inline void __iomem *irq_base (int i) -{ -static unsigned long phys_base[] = { -0x40d00000 ,
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t · line 151
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +0
-7-0x40d0009c , - 0x40d00130, - }; - -return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); -} -void __init pxa_init_irq (int irq_nr,set_wake_t fn) {int irq, i, n;
Way better indeed
Quoted 34 lines · Marek Vasut
Quoted 32 lines
Signed-off-by Marek Vasut <[email protected]>---
v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergeiarch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 8 ++------ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +2
-7@@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)static void pxa_mask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->mask (irq); +pxa_mask_irq (irq); }static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->unmask (irq); +pxa_unmask_irq (irq); }static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = { --1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 5/5 ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
In reply to Eric MiaoQuoted 3 lines · On Wednesday 12 January 2011 00:16:50 Eric Miao wrote:
The original intention is to re-use pxa_{mask,unmask}_irq(), will the change below looks better? The move of
irq_base()is to avoid the error of function not declared.
Here's your :
Tested on Zipit Z2
Quoted 111 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +14
-27@@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static inline int cpu_has_ipr(void)return !cpu_is_pxa25x (); } +static inline void __iomem *irq_base (int i) +{ +static unsigned long phys_base[] = { +0x40d00000 , +0x40d0009c , +0x40d00130 , + }; + +return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); +} +static void pxa_mask_irq (unsigned int irq) {void __iomem *base =get_irq_chip_data (irq);@@ -108,25 +119,11 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)GEDR0 = (1 << (irq -IRQ_GPIO0 )); } -static void pxa_mask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) -{ -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->mask (irq); -} - -static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) -{ -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->unmask (irq); -} -static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = { .name ="GPIO-l" , .ack = pxa_ack_low_gpio, - .mask = pxa_mask_low_gpio, - .unmask = pxa_unmask_low_gpio, + .mask = pxa_mask_irq, + .unmask = pxa_unmask_irq, .set_type = pxa_set_low_gpio_type, };@@ -141,6 +138,7 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)for (irq =IRQ_GPIO0 ; irq <=IRQ_GPIO1 ; irq++) {set_irq_chip (irq, &pxa_low_gpio_chip); +set_irq_chip_data (irq,irq_base (0 ));set_irq_handler (irq, handle_edge_irq);set_irq_flags (irq,IRQF_VALID ); }@@ -148,17 +146,6 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn) pxa_low_gpio_chip.set_wake = fn; } -static inline void __iomem *irq_base (int i) -{ -static unsigned long phys_base[] = { -0x40d00000 , -0x40d0009c , -0x40d00130 , - }; - -return (void __iomem *)io_p2v (phys_base[i]); -} -void __init pxa_init_irq (int irq_nr,set_wake_t fn) {int irq, i, n;Quoted 32 lines · Marek Vasut
Signed-off-by Marek Vasut <[email protected]>---
v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergeiarch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 8 ++------ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +2
-7@@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)static void pxa_mask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->mask (irq); +pxa_mask_irq (irq); }static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->unmask (irq); +pxa_unmask_irq (irq); }static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = { --1.7.2.3
PATCH v2 5/5 ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
In reply to Marek VasutHello.
Quoted 20 lines · Marek Vasut
Signed-off-by Marek Vasut<[email protected]>---
v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergeiarch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c | 8 ++------ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1
-3@@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)static void pxa_mask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->mask (irq); +pxa_mask_irq (irq); }
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq) · line 121
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c +1
-3static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio (unsigned int irq) { -struct irq_desc *desc =irq_to_desc (irq); - - desc->chip->unmask (irq); +pxa_unmask_irq (irq); }static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
If the above two functions are the methods of this IRQ chip, shouldn't you
just replace the initializers and remove the functions altogether?
WBR, Sergei