Dear Tom Rini,
On 09/27/12 10:11, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Tom Rini,
On 09/27/12 09:45, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Tom Rini,
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 06:13:36PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Andrew Bradford,
> If configured to use UART{1,2,4,5}, such as on the Beaglebone > RS232 cape, enable the required clocks for the UART in use. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Bradford andrew@bradfordembedded.com > --- > > arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clock.c | 28 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 > insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clock.c > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clock.c index 2b19506..4eb9226 > 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clock.c +++ > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clock.c @@ -114,6 +114,34 @@ > static void enable_per_clocks(void) > > while (readl(&cmwkup->wkup_uart0ctrl) != PRCM_MOD_EN) ; > > + /* UART1 */ +#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL2 + writel(PRCM_MOD_EN, > &cmper->uart1clkctrl); + while (readl(&cmper->uart1clkctrl) > != PRCM_MOD_EN) + ;
Call WATCHDOG_RESET() here, fix glboally
We don't have WATCHDOG_RESET...
You do, and it opts-out to udelay(1) is most cases.
It looks like it opts-out to {} in most cases, in <watchdog.h>
Correct, we use it to retrigger watchdog timer if implemented.
Which the SoC support isn't doing and the rest of the code also isn't trying to use. Arguably the whole file should be doing udelay(1) in each of these instances and a clean up patch which this series depends on might be useful.
So we're changing the practice from doing WATCHDOG_RESET() to udelay(1) ? And we're doing so in generic code?
Best regards, Marek Vasut