On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:17:28AM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> Update the serial_txx9 driver.
>
> * Use platform_device.
> * Fix and cleanup suspend/resume/initialization codes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Acked-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew, I've appl
Update the serial_txx9 driver.
* Use platform_device.
* Fix and cleanup suspend/resume/initialization codes.
Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c b/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c
index f4440d3..509ac
> Then I'll put udelay() and a timeout counter for it. If udelay() was
> in the busy loop, cpu_relax() is still recommended?
The udelay should deal with it for you.
> Here is a patch on top of the previous one. If this was OK I'll fold
> it into one patch.
Looks good to me
> + while ((si
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:48:26 +, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_TX49XX
> > + /* TX4925 BUG WORKAROUND. Accessing SIOC register
> > +* immediately after soft reset causes bus error. */
> > + iob();
> > + udelay(1);
> > +#endif
>
> Given this costs 1uS in a path
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:48:26PM +, Alan wrote:
> Given this costs 1uS in a path that is not performance critical is it
> worth putting the #ifdef/#endif in instead of having one set of code that
> works for all ?
>
> > + while (sio_in(up, TXX9_SIFCR) & TXX9_SIFCR_SWRST)
> > + ;
> +static void serial_txx9_initialize(struct uart_port *port)
> +{
> + struct uart_txx9_port *up = (struct uart_txx9_port *)port;
> +
> + sio_out(up, TXX9_SIFCR, TXX9_SIFCR_SWRST);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_TX49XX
> + /* TX4925 BUG WORKAROUND. Accessing SIOC register
> + * immediately
Update the serial_txx9 driver.
* Use platform_device.
* Fix and cleanup suspend/resume codes.
Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c b/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c
index f4440d3..124d056 100644
--- a/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c
+++ b/dri
7 matches
Mail list logo