Grant == Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Grant +static int uartlite_open(void)
Grant +{
Grant + /* Clear the RX FIFO */
Grant + out_be32(reg_base + 0x0C, 0x2);
Grant + return 0;
Grant +}
Grant +
Grant +static void uartlite_putc(unsigned char c)
Grant +{
On 10/2/07, Peter Korsgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant == Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Grant +static int uartlite_open(void)
Grant +{
Grant + /* Clear the RX FIFO */
Grant + out_be32(reg_base + 0x0C, 0x2);
Grant + return 0;
Grant +}
Grant +
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile |2 +
arch/powerpc/boot/ops.h |1 +
arch/powerpc/boot/serial.c |2 +
arch/powerpc/boot/uartlite.c | 64 ++
4 files
On Friday 28 September 2007, Grant Likely wrote:
+static void uartlite_putc(unsigned char c)
+{
+ while ((in_be32(reg_base + 0x8) 0x08) != 0); /* spin */
+ out_be32(reg_base + 0x4, c);
+}
When coding a spin-loop, it's better to do a cpu_relax() between
each attempt.
On 9/28/07, Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007, Grant Likely wrote:
+static void uartlite_putc(unsigned char c)
+{
+while ((in_be32(reg_base + 0x8) 0x08) != 0); /* spin */
+out_be32(reg_base + 0x4, c);
+}
When coding a spin-loop, it's better to do a
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:04:04 -0600
Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/28/07, Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007, Grant Likely wrote:
+static void uartlite_putc(unsigned char c)
+{
+while ((in_be32(reg_base + 0x8) 0x08) != 0); /* spin */
On Friday 28 September 2007, Josh Boyer wrote:
Is cpu_relax even implemented in the bootwrapper?
No. And it doesn't need to be :)
I think I should learn to read subject lines. You are of course
both right.
Arnd
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
