On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 07:43:03PM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > + xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, > + 0x18, > + pVBInfo->SR15[2][pVBInfo->ram_type]); /* SR18 */ > xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x19, 0x01); > xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x16, pVBInfo->SR16[0]); > xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x16, pVBInfo->SR16[1]); > mdelay(1); > xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x1B, 0x03); > udelay(500); > - xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x18, pVBInfo->SR15[2][XGINew_RAMType]); /* SR18 */ > + xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, > + 0x18, > + pVBInfo->SR15[2][pVBInfo->ram_type]); /* SR18 */ > xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x19, 0x00); > xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x16, pVBInfo->SR16[2]); > xgifb_reg_set(P3c4, 0x16, pVBInfo->SR16[3]); > @@ -132,23 +134,23 @@ static void XGINew_SetMemoryClock(struct xgi_hw_device_info *HwDeviceExtension, > > xgifb_reg_set(pVBInfo->P3c4, > 0x28, > - pVBInfo->MCLKData[XGINew_RAMType].SR28); > + pVBInfo->MCLKData[pVBInfo->ram_type].SR28); > xgifb_reg_set(pVBInfo->P3c4, > 0x29, > - pVBInfo->MCLKData[XGINew_RAMType].SR29); > + pVBInfo->MCLKData[pVBInfo->ram_type].SR29); > xgifb_reg_set(pVBInfo->P3c4, > 0x2A, > - pVBInfo->MCLKData[XGINew_RAMType].SR2A); > + pVBInfo->MCLKData[pVBInfo->ram_type].SR2A); > > xgifb_reg_set(pVBInfo->P3c4, > 0x2E, > - pVBInfo->ECLKData[XGINew_RAMType].SR2E); > + pVBInfo->ECLKData[pVBInfo->ram_type].SR2E); > xgifb_reg_set(pVBInfo->P3c4, > 0x2F, > - pVBInfo->ECLKData[XGINew_RAMType].SR2F); > + pVBInfo->ECLKData[pVBInfo->ram_type].SR2F); > xgifb_reg_set(pVBInfo->P3c4, > 0x30, > - pVBInfo->ECLKData[XGINew_RAMType].SR30); > + pVBInfo->ECLKData[pVBInfo->ram_type].SR30); > Or maybe not. It's not from this patch, but the one parameter per line thing is quirky. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
