From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932769Ab0KLUOQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:14:16 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:40105 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932526Ab0KLUOP (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:14:15 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=N5lkpeGLSt06LojS0+/vxo/pEC06h9iJIJxf/54cJthReCfmYTTQpb81IsFJkwaMcJ 0OrGvXOyOIIk4Ro+l1aB1R4plZ1SVqDDFOfZKzpkZ4WY/S8zQJA5UJCmtsTqFI24vbQU 4stuAajZTj+1c94af7XaKq2aV+hbxW4YpJvJI= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101112165420.GA6928@alchark-u3s.lan> References: <1289147348-31969-1-git-send-email-alchark@gmail.com> <20101107165745.GB1759@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20101107171726.GF1759@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20101108171930.GA1471@alchark-u3s.lan> <20101111212322.GA15533@alchark-u3s.lan> <20101111234957.GA28735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20101112165420.GA6928@alchark-u3s.lan> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:14:12 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v6] ARM: Add basic architecture support for VIA/WonderMedia 85xx SoC's From: Alexey Charkov To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Alexey Charkov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, vt8500-wm8505-linux-kernel@googlegroups.com, Eric Miao , =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= , Albin Tonnerre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Russell, could you please elaborate on your comment regarding spinlocks > and irq handlers? I always compile my kernel with all kinds of lock > debugging, and have not run into any associated warnings. Is there > anything suspicious specifically? My fault: actually, those were not all lock debugging functions. It really prints errors when lock correctness proving is enabled. I thus decided to just assign the callback functions directly to irq_desc struct fields, as it is done in mach-msm. There is, however, another error showing up: it complains about my use of ioremap inside arch_reset(). Is it fine to just hardcode the virtual address of the respective register and use that directly in this case? Something along the lines of: /* PM Software Reset request register */ #define VT8500_PMSR_VIRT 0xf8130060 static inline void arch_reset(char mode, const char *cmd) { writel(1, VT8500_PMSR_VIRT); } Thanks, Alexey