Hi Sascha,

> + local_irq_disable();
> + do_gettimeofday(&before);
> +
> + plat_lpc = __raw_readl(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC) &
> + ~(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC_DSM);

One thing that strikes me here is the fact that this code can probably
run on i.MX53 aswell, right? It's only that these registers have
different addresses on i.MX53. The MXC_ prefix is therefore not a good
idea. Switching this to MX51_ and having an additional MX53_ register
leads to code duplication. This shows that it's a bad idea to code
fixed addresses in the code. We should go for base + offset instead
so that this code will have a better start on i.MX53. This of course
needs changes in the current crm_regs.h and probably in the i.MX51/53
clock code.

Yes, for mx53, it is similar.

But for the case you are talking about, is it easier that we keep MXC_ prefix in this file and define MXC_ to MX51 or MX53 in crm_regs.h according to which board is running?

In addition, registers for this code are not in one section, which means many BASEx + offset there, if I understand right. Do you have a sample for 'base + offset' case? since mx53 just came in, I am not sure about such case.

yong