Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:20:07 +0100 From: Zbigniew Bodek <zbb@semihalf.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Minor fixes to PL011 UART Message-ID: <CAG7dG%2BzVFOpsW1aLnYV-WMch5=4QwSyv=oQRMJy2PbxsDGOQsw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BE44C51E-DA0C-4871-9D6F-EA0BAEF1F77A@bsdimp.com> References: <CAG7dG%2BzAwmysuygugEh1mB767KPw5n1UB1YnotPSCdozcFC_yQ@mail.gmail.com> <BE44C51E-DA0C-4871-9D6F-EA0BAEF1F77A@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2014-12-11 0:10 GMT+01:00 Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>: > >> On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Zbigniew Bodek <zbb@semihalf.com> wrote: >> >> <0001-Fix-some-obvious-mistakes-in-ARM-PL011-UART.patch> > > This looks good to me, assuming that the busy bit you are testing is well= defined for all implementations of pl011. I=E2=80=99d consider adding the = uart_barrier, but it isn=E2=80=99t critical. > > Warner Hello, Thanks. According to the documentation BUSY bit is common to all product revisions. Best regards zbb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG7dG%2BzVFOpsW1aLnYV-WMch5=4QwSyv=oQRMJy2PbxsDGOQsw>