On 11.06.2014 18:00, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>> index 060a75e..ddaebcd 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>> @@ -46,7 +46,8 @@ struct machine_desc {
>> enum reboot_mode reboot_mode; /* default restart mode */
>> unsigned l2c_aux_val; /* L2 cache aux value */
>> unsigned l2c_aux_mask; /* L2 cache aux mask */
>> - void (*l2c_write_sec)(unsigned long, unsigned);
>> + void (*l2c_write_sec)(void __iomem *,
>> + unsigned long, unsigned);
>> struct smp_operations *smp; /* SMP operations */
>> bool (*smp_init)(void);
>> void (*fixup)(struct tag *, char **);
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> index efc5cab..1695eab 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static void l2c_write_sec(unsigned long val, void __iomem *base, unsigned reg)
>> if (val == readl_relaxed(base + reg))
>> return;
>> if (outer_cache.write_sec)
>> - outer_cache.write_sec(val, reg);
>> + outer_cache.write_sec(base, val, reg);
>> else
>> writel_relaxed(val, base + reg);
>> }
>
> The parameter order (base, val, reg) seems very non-intuitive.
> Are you matching some existing prototype or adhering to some
> backwards compatibility issue? If not wouldn't, say, (base, reg, val)
> or (val, base, reg) be more intuitive?
Hmm, I didn't think too much about this, so this order is just whatever
first came to my mind, probably because I'm used to xxx_write(ctx, val,
reg) accessors found in many drivers.
Anyway, l2c_write_sec() in arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c, which calls
outer_cache.write_sec(), already uses (val, base, reg) convention, so
probably this one would be most suitable. I'll change in v2.
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
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
