Hi Jun,

thanks for your reply. Just a quick one below...

...

quoted

quoted

@@ -203,6 +206,24 @@ struct uart_amba_port {
 #endif
 };

+static unsigned int pl011_readw(struct uart_amba_port *uap, int index)
+{
+       WARN_ON(index > REG_NR);
+       return readw_relaxed(uap->port.membase + (index << 2));
+}
+
+static void pl011_writew(struct uart_amba_port *uap, int val, int index)
+{
+       WARN_ON(index > REG_NR);
+       writew_relaxed(val, uap->port.membase + (index << 2));
+}

I wonder if you could rename those to pl011_{read,write}, respectively
(loosing the "w" suffix).
The SBSA UART spec reads as the registers are actually accessible via
32-bit accesses and rumour has it that there are implementations which
rely on that and don't work with ldrh/strh.
I am still waiting for reports about actual hardware to fail, but we
might be forced to change the access width to 32-bit for the SBSA subset
in the future. So having wrapper functions would make that change much
easier, but having them without a suffix from the beginning would even
be better, as I wouldn't be bothered to rename them later on.

OK, will change to 32-bit access in future version.

Sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. 16-bit accesses are
totally fine for every _PL011_ part, it is just the SBSA-UART (which
uses this very same driver) which _may_ require 32-bit accesses.

So I was asking just to name the functions pl011_write and pl011_read,
so that their "w" suffix does not delude people into them being forever
16-bit wide. If needed (as said I am still waiting for failure reports),
we can then change the access width inside these functions to the
appropriate size later without requiring a name change again.

So please keep the {write,read}w_relaxed calls in there, just change the
function name.

Thanks!
Andre.