[PATCH v2 11/19] ARM: at91/PMC: make register base soc independent

On 02/22/2012 11:50 PM, Ryan Mallon :

On 22/02/12 20:39, Nicolas Ferre wrote:

quoted

From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <redacted>

Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <redacted>
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Ryan Mallon <redacted>
---

<snip>

quoted

-	seq_printf(s, "SCSR = %8x\n", scsr = at91_sys_read(AT91_PMC_SCSR));
-	seq_printf(s, "PCSR = %8x\n", pcsr = at91_sys_read(AT91_PMC_PCSR));
-	seq_printf(s, "MOR  = %8x\n", at91_sys_read(AT91_CKGR_MOR));
-	seq_printf(s, "MCFR = %8x\n", at91_sys_read(AT91_CKGR_MCFR));
-	seq_printf(s, "PLLA = %8x\n", at91_sys_read(AT91_CKGR_PLLAR));
+	seq_printf(s, "SCSR = %8x\n", scsr = at91_pmc_read(AT91_PMC_SCSR));
+	seq_printf(s, "PCSR = %8x\n", pcsr = at91_pmc_read(AT91_PMC_PCSR));

I realise the original code is wrong, so doesn't need to be fixed in
this patch, but can we please move the assignments out of the seq_printf
calls.

Well, I would not say "wrong". But ugly, for sure. I queue a patch to
correct this just before this one.

<snip>

quoted

 void __init at91_ioremap_ramc(int id, u32 addr, u32 size)

@@ -208,7 +207,7 @@ void __init at91_ioremap_ramc(int id, u32 addr, u32 size)
 	}
 	at91_ramc_base[id] = ioremap(addr, size);
 	if (!at91_ramc_base[id])
-		pr_warn("Impossible to ioremap ramc.%d 0x%x\n", id, addr);
+		panic("Impossible to ioremap ramc.%d 0x%x\n", id, addr);

This is in the wrong patch, and should be folded into the correct patch.

Absolutely, this belongs to the previous patch. Thanks for highlighting
this.

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre