Hi,
On 02.06.2014 14:35, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Replace EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR and EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG macros
> by exynos_boot_vector_addr() and exynos_boot_vector_flag() static
> inlines.
>
> This patch shouldn't cause any functionality changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> index 87c0d34..cf09383 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> @@ -166,12 +166,23 @@ int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster)
> S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN);
> }
>
> -#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
> - S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> - (sysram_base_addr + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
> -#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
> - S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> - (sysram_base_addr + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
> +static inline void __iomem *exynos_boot_vector_addr(void)
> +{
> + if (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1)
> + return S5P_INFORM7;
> + else if (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0)
> + return sysram_base_addr + 0x24;
> + return S5P_INFORM0;
I know this is not strictly related to this patch, but isn't a check
whether the SoC is Exynos4210 also needed, before comparing the revision
with Exynos4210-specific values?
Otherwise looks good.
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
