Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to spmi_pmic_arb

[kgunda]

On 2017-06-02 23:59, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 06/01, kgunda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >>@@ -209,23 +210,24 @@ static void pa_read_data(struct
> > >>spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc)
> > >>  * @buf:	buffer to write. length must be bc + 1.
> > >>  */
> > >> static void
> > >>-pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, const u8 *buf, u32
> > >>reg, u8 bc)
> > >>+pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, const u8 *buf, u32 reg,
> > >>u8 bc)
> > >> {
> > >> 	u32 data = 0;
> > >>+
> > >> 	memcpy(&data, buf, (bc & 3) + 1);
> > >>-	__raw_writel(data, dev->wr_base + reg);
> > >>+	pmic_arb_base_write(pa, reg, data);
> > >
> > >This is an unrelated change. Not sure what's going on with this
> > >diff but we most likely want to keep the __raw_writel() here. See
> > >how renames introduce bugs and why we don't value them?
> > >
> > Actually pmic_arb_base_write has the writel_relaxed inside it.
> > that's why we removed the __raw_writel to use the common function.
> > Anyways, we drop the renaming patch from this patch series.
>
> __raw_writel() is there on purpose because we're reading bytes at
> a time and the CPU could be big-endian or little-endian.
> readl_relaxed() would do a byte swap which we don't want.
ok. Thanks for clarifying it. We do not remove the __raw_writel.