-----Original Message----- From: Michael Walle [mailto:michael@walle.cc] Sent: 29 May 2012 03:38 To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; Valentin Longchamp; holger.brunck@keymile.com Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] kirkwood: add kirkwood_mpp_save/restore functions
Am Donnerstag 24 Mai 2012, 10:26:44 schrieb Prafulla Wadaskar:
+void kirkwood_mpp_save(void)
This should be void kirkwood_mpp_save(unsigned int *mpp_ctrl, int len)
+{
- int i;
- for (i = 0; i < MPP_NR_REGS; i++)
mpp_regs[i] = readl(MPP_CTRL(i));+}
+void kirkwood_mpp_restore(void)
Same here void kirkwood_mpp_restore(unsigned int *mpp_ctrl, int len)
or even better kirkwood_mpp_restore(const unsigned int *mpp_ctrl, int len)
btw. sometimes "unsigned int" is used and sometimes "u32", could we agree on one? Eg. kirkwood_mpp_conf() is declared with unsigned int but defined with u32.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, we should use u32. And const will be a problem since mpp_ctrl will be array that will be dynamically modified.
Regards.. Prafulla . . .