arm: davinci: pdctl next bit position incorrect
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
PATCH 1/1 arm: davinci: pdctl next bit position incorrect
Hi Murali,
Quoted 6 lines · On 4/18/2012 4:11 PM, m-karicheri2 at ti.com wrote:
From: Murali Karicheri <[email protected]>
The PDCTL NEXT bit is incorrectly set to bit 1 instead of bit 0. This patch fixes this issue
Signed-off-by Murali Karicheri <[email protected]>
Applying this for v3.5. Note that the "arm:" prefix in subject has to be capitalized. I fixed it while comitting. Please take care next time on.
Thanks,
Sekhar
PATCH 1/1 arm: davinci: pdctl next bit position incorrect
Hello.
Quoted 6 lines · Sekhar Nori
Quoted 4 lines
The PDCTL NEXT bit is incorrectly set to bit 1 instead of bit 0. This patch fixes this issue
Signed-off-by Murali Karicheri<[email protected]>Applying this for v3.5.
But why not to 3.4? It concerns turning on DSP domain on DM644x.
WBR, Sergei
PATCH 1/1 arm: davinci: pdctl next bit position incorrect
Hi Sergei,
Quoted 4 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
On 19-04-2012 0:23, Sekhar Nori wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The PDCTL NEXT bit is incorrectly set to bit 1 instead of bit 0. This patch fixes this issue
Signed-off-by Murali Karicheri<[email protected]>Applying this for v3.5.
But why not to 3.4? It concerns turning on DSP domain on DM644x.
Yes, but I think as you noted sometime before, no one is really depending on kernel to turn on DSP domain on DM644x. Its probably being done from U-Boot or ROM code. This is not a v3.4 regression either.
Thanks,
Sekhar
PATCH 1/1 arm: davinci: pdctl next bit position incorrect
Hello.
Quoted 11 lines · Sekhar Nori
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The PDCTL NEXT bit is incorrectly set to bit 1 instead of bit 0. This patch fixes this issue
Signed-off-by Murali Karicheri<[email protected]>Applying this for v3.5.
But why not to 3.4? It concerns turning on DSP domain on DM644x.
Yes, but I think as you noted sometime before, no one is really depending on kernel to turn on DSP domain on DM644x.
Looks like you're right (though I don't remember noting it :-).
Quoted 2 lines
Its probably being
done from U-Boot or ROM code. This is not a v3.4 regression either.
U-Boot does it only when DSPLINK support is not desired.
Quoted 2 lines
Thanks,
Sekhar
WBR, Sergei
PATCH 1/1 arm: davinci: pdctl next bit position incorrect
Hi Sergei,
Quoted 16 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 11 lines · Sekhar Nori
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The PDCTL NEXT bit is incorrectly set to bit 1 instead of bit 0. This patch fixes this issue
Signed-off-by Murali Karicheri<[email protected]>Applying this for v3.5.
But why not to 3.4? It concerns turning on DSP domain on DM644x.
Yes, but I think as you noted sometime before, no one is really depending on kernel to turn on DSP domain on DM644x.
Quoted 6 lines
Looks like you're right (though I don't remember noting it :-).
Quoted 2 lines
Its probably being
done from U-Boot or ROM code. This is not a v3.4 regression either.U-Boot does it only when DSPLINK support is not desired.
Okay. Since DSPLink existed long before this code to turn on domain was introduced by Murali, it must be having its own private code to do this. So, looks like this should not really be a regression for anyone.
Thanks,
Sekhar
PATCH 1/1 arm: davinci: pdctl next bit position incorrect
Hello.
Quoted 16 lines · Sekhar Nori
Quoted 15 lines · Sekhar Nori
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
The PDCTL NEXT bit is incorrectly set to bit 1 instead of bit 0. This patch fixes this issue
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Murali Karicheri<[email protected]>Applying this for v3.5.
But why not to 3.4? It concerns turning on DSP domain on DM644x.
Yes, but I think as you noted sometime before, no one is really depending on kernel to turn on DSP domain on DM644x.
Looks like you're right (though I don't remember noting it :-).
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Its probably being
done from U-Boot or ROM code. This is not a v3.4 regression either.U-Boot does it only when DSPLINK support is not desired.
Okay. Since DSPLink existed long before this code to turn on domain was introduced by Murali,
The code to turn on DSP domain wasn't introduced by Murali, it was there
originally. Ah, you probably mean that the code was checking PDSTAT0, not PDSTAT1 before doing the DSP domain switch?
Quoted 2 lines
it must be having its own private code to do this.
So, looks like this should not really be a regression for anyone.
It seems you're right.
Quoted 2 lines
Thanks,
Sekhar
WBR, Sergei