Re: [PATCH 1/2] sh: dma: fix `dmaor_read_reg`/`dmaor_write_reg` macros
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <65f873585db0cd9f79a84eb48707413775a9ba5b.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> |
On Sat, 2023-05-06 at 16:17 +0200, Artur Rojek wrote: > Squash two bugs introduced into said macros in 7f47c7189b3e, preventing > them from proper operation: > 1) Add DMAOR register offset into the address of the hw reg access, > 2) Correct a nasty typo in the DMAOR base calculation for > `dmaor_write_reg`. > > Signed-off-by: Artur Rojek <[email protected]> > --- > arch/sh/drivers/dma/dma-sh.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/sh/drivers/dma/dma-sh.c b/arch/sh/drivers/dma/dma-sh.c > index 96c626c2cd0a..14c18ebda400 100644 > --- a/arch/sh/drivers/dma/dma-sh.c > +++ b/arch/sh/drivers/dma/dma-sh.c > @@ -254,8 +254,11 @@ static int sh_dmac_get_dma_residue(struct dma_channel *chan) > * DMAOR bases are broken out amongst channel groups. DMAOR0 manages > * channels 0 - 5, DMAOR1 6 - 11 (optional). > */ > -#define dmaor_read_reg(n) __raw_readw(dma_find_base((n)*6)) > -#define dmaor_write_reg(n, data) __raw_writew(data, dma_find_base(n)*6) > +#define dmaor_read_reg(n) __raw_readw(dma_find_base((n) * 6) + \ > + DMAOR) > +#define dmaor_write_reg(n, data) __raw_writew(data, \ > + dma_find_base((n) * 6) + \ > + DMAOR) > > static inline int dmaor_reset(int no) > { I have looked through the changes and the code and I agree that there is a typo in dmaor_write_regn() that needs to be fixed and that the DMAOR offset is missing although I don't understand why that didn't break the kernel on other SuperH systems such as my SH-7785LCR evaluation board or the LANDISK board which Geert uses. What I also don't understand is the factor 6 the DMA channel number is multiplied with. When looking at the definition of dma_find_base(), it seems that every channel equal to 6 or higher will return SH_DMAC_BASE1 as DMA base address. But if we multiply the parameter with 6, this will apply to every n > 0. Is that correct? Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913