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 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
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
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);
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 be
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.
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
