On 06/01, kgunda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
