I've done it within another function, because otherwise users of other chips would pay for a one more runtime check, which they don't need. On the other hand, this function get called not so frequently, to make it valueable. The first version of my patch i've used internally worked as you said, so i can resend it. I want to ask more experienced users of s3c2443. If this problem occures on all s3c2443 chips, or only with some series of it? Maybe we need some more checks, not to break working cases. 24.11.2012 04:16, Heiko Stübner пишет: >>> What does this do or what should it do? Also it gets calculated but >>> never used? >>> >>> And please use scripts/checkpatch.pl to verify your patch follows >>> coding guidelines, as this block is especially hard to read. > So essentially register-reads somehow returned transformed data, but the write > is done according to the datasheet. > > > It would definitely be better to integrate it into the existing _irqext_type > function instead of introducing a second one. > > The cpu_id is present in the samsung_cpu_id var and the list of cpus including > the s3c2443 can be found in common.c. With this it would be possible to > identify when the irq code is run on a s3c2443 machine and the original > _irqext_type function could change the behaviour accordingly. > > Not sure if it would make sense to introduce soc_is_s3c2443() etc macros for > this. > > And of course the actual block doing the transformation on read would need a > more elaborate comment on the why and how, because in 3 years someone might > not directly see what this does and why it was necessary. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |