| Message ID | 1346471760-23993-2-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Saturday 01 September 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > In the PL010 UART callback a comparison against the base address is > done to figure out which UART is doing the callback. This does not > play well with device tree, so let's check the dev_name() of the > device instead. > > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Hmm, I think the dev_name would also not be that nice, because it changes after the conversion to DT is complete. > arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c > index 5ba4bc8..67ea181 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c > @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static void integrator_uart_set_mctrl(struct amba_device *dev, void __iomem *bas > { > unsigned int ctrls = 0, ctrlc = 0, rts_mask, dtr_mask; > > - if (dev == &uart0_device) { > + if (!strcmp(dev_name(&dev->dev), "uart0")) { > rts_mask = 1 << 4; > dtr_mask = 1 << 5; > } else { Maybe it's possible to compare the base pointer against INTEGRATOR_UART0_BASE instead? Arnd
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Saturday 01 September 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: >> In the PL010 UART callback a comparison against the base address is >> done to figure out which UART is doing the callback. This does not >> play well with device tree, so let's check the dev_name() of the >> device instead. >> >> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > Hmm, I think the dev_name would also not be that nice, because it changes > after the conversion to DT is complete. Hmmmm yeah. I do tie down the name to "uart0" using auxdata. (...) >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c >> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static void integrator_uart_set_mctrl(struct amba_device *dev, void __iomem *bas >> { >> unsigned int ctrls = 0, ctrlc = 0, rts_mask, dtr_mask; >> >> - if (dev == &uart0_device) { >> + if (!strcmp(dev_name(&dev->dev), "uart0")) { >> rts_mask = 1 << 4; >> dtr_mask = 1 << 5; >> } else { > > Maybe it's possible to compare the base pointer against INTEGRATOR_UART0_BASE instead? Nope, that is an ioremapped() base, I have no clue what it may be. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >> On Saturday 01 September 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> - if (dev == &uart0_device) { >>> + if (!strcmp(dev_name(&dev->dev), "uart0")) { >>> rts_mask = 1 << 4; >>> dtr_mask = 1 << 5; >>> } else { >> >> Maybe it's possible to compare the base pointer against INTEGRATOR_UART0_BASE instead? > > Nope, that is an ioremapped() base, I have no clue what it may be. But hey I have the struct amba_device there, so the mem resource is there indeed :-) I'll fix! Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c index 5ba4bc8..67ea181 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static void integrator_uart_set_mctrl(struct amba_device *dev, void __iomem *bas { unsigned int ctrls = 0, ctrlc = 0, rts_mask, dtr_mask; - if (dev == &uart0_device) { + if (!strcmp(dev_name(&dev->dev), "uart0")) { rts_mask = 1 << 4; dtr_mask = 1 << 5; } else {
In the PL010 UART callback a comparison against the base address is done to figure out which UART is doing the callback. This does not play well with device tree, so let's check the dev_name() of the device instead. Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> --- arch/arm/mach-integrator/core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)