On 11/03/2016 03:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:23:09PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On 11/03/2016 02:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 02:31:32PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>>> The current code doesn't even compile ....
>>>
>>> Give a better description in the log, especially if this patch is supposed to
>>> go to stable@
>>
>> OK.
>
> [ ... ]
Here's what I added
---->
ARC: timer: rtc: implement read loop in "C" vs. inline asm
The current code doesn't even compile as somehow the inline assembly
can't see the register names defined as ARC_RTC_*
I'm pretty sure It worked when I first got it merged, but the tools were
definitely different then.
So better to write this in "C" anyways.
>
>>> Is the condition correct ? If I refer to your previous answer, the bit will be
>>> set for status if the counter wrapped up. So in this case, we won't exit the
>>> loop until we wrap up, no ?
>>
>> No thats not what I meant. Bit being set there means things are fine (no interrupt
>> taken, no increment of high after low was readetc). All I changed here was use of
>> 0x8000_0000 to the macro. BBIT0 in assembler means branch if bit was clear.
>
> Fair enough. So the logic is inverted 'status' == 0 means 'not fine'.
Indeed !
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html