Return-path: Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]:3476 "EHLO sabertooth01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750829Ab3JQFdN (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:33:13 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Michal Kazior CC: , linux-wireless Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] ath10k: fix device initialization routine References: <20131016134503.25095.8044.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <20131016134617.25095.10581.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <87ppr55hun.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:33:07 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Michal Kazior's message of "Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:01:52 -0700") Message-ID: <87zjq84g30.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20131017_073320_482917_C6E83767) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michal Kazior writes: > On 16 October 2013 08:57, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Michal Kazior writes: >> >>>> + /* disable pending irqs */ >>>> + ath10k_pci_core_write32(ar, PCIE_INTR_ENABLE_ADDRESS, 0); >>>> + ath10k_pci_core_write32(ar, PCIE_INTR_CLR_ADDRESS, ~0); >>> >>> These use SOC_CORE_BASE_ADDRESS as the suffix, not the RTC_SOC_BASE_ADDRESS. >> >> But I am using SOC_CORE_BASE_ADDRESS, right? > > Ah, right. Sorry. My eyesight failed me :) Those function names seem a > little confusing (_core_ for SOC_CORE and _soc_ for RTC_SOC) Yeah, I agree. I didn't research what RTC_SOC stands for, I just assumed it contains registers for controlling the whole SOC state. That's why I used "_soc_" here. And CORE registers control just one part of SOC. -- Kalle Valo