On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 21:36 +0300, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> Since we have mfdcri() and mtdcri() as macros, we can't use constructions,
> such
> as "mtdcri(base, reg, mfdcri(base, reg) | val)". In this case the mfdcri()
> stuff
> is not evaluated first. It's evaluated inside the mtdcri() macro
Since we have mfdcri() and mtdcri() as macros, we can't use constructions, such
as "mtdcri(base, reg, mfdcri(base, reg) | val)". In this case the mfdcri() stuff
is not evaluated first. It's evaluated inside the mtdcri() macro and we have
the dcr_ind_lock spinlock acquired twice. To avoid this error
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:27 +0300, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> Since we have mfdcri() and mtdcri() as macros, we can't use constructions,
> such
> as "mtdcri(base, reg, mfdcri(base, reg) | val)". In this case the mfdcri()
> stuff
> is not evaluated first. It's evaluated inside the mtdcr() macro a
Since we have mfdcri() and mtdcri() as macros, we can't use constructions, such
as "mtdcri(base, reg, mfdcri(base, reg) | val)". In this case the mfdcri() stuff
is not evaluated first. It's evaluated inside the mtdcr() macro and we have
the dcr_ind_lock spinlock acquired twice. To avoid this error,
