Fix TUSB6010 ID register offsets.

PATCH In review Andrzej Zaborowski 3 participants 6 messages Mar 29, 2008 – Apr 2, 2008

Subsystems (2)

USB MUSB multipoint high speed dual-role controller

lore

Share & tools

lore

Andrzej Zaborowski

author

2008-03-29 16:48 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 Fix TUSB6010 ID register offsets.

From: Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>

[Sorry, the previous patch was a copy/paste mistake, this one should be better]

I have no access to the docs for this chip but I'm pretty sure the current address of the two DIDR1 registers is wrong because it's outside the TUSB-specific register space. The modified address in turn has a good chance to be correct.

Signed-off-by Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +2 -2

index bb25c3b..f2036ef 100644
@@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 wakeup_enables);
 #define TUSB_PROD_TEST_RESET_VAL		0xa596
 #define TUSB_EP_FIFO(ep)			(TUSB_FIFO_BASE + (ep) * 0x20)
 
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				0x1f8
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				0x1fc
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1f8)
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1fc)
 #define		TUSB_DIDR1_HI_CHIP_REV(v)		(((v) >> 17) & 0xf)
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_20		0
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_30		1

Signature · 1 line

1.5.3.4

Tony Lindgren

2008-03-31 07:58 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 20 lines · Andrzej Zaborowski

From: Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
[Sorry, the previous patch was a copy/paste mistake, this one should be better]
I have no access to the docs for this chip but I'm pretty sure the current address of the two DIDR1 registers is wrong because it's outside the TUSB-specific register space. The modified address in turn has a good chance to be correct.
Signed-off-by Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +0 -0
index bb25c3b..f2036ef 100644

drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 wakeup_enables); · line 232

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +2 -2

@@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 wakeup_enables);
 #define TUSB_PROD_TEST_RESET_VAL		0xa596
 #define TUSB_EP_FIFO(ep)			(TUSB_FIFO_BASE + (ep) * 0x20)
 
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				0x1f8
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				0x1fc
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1f8)
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1fc)
 #define		TUSB_DIDR1_HI_CHIP_REV(v)		(((v) >> 17) & 0xf)
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_20		0
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_30		1

This looks like a valid fix. Hmm, I guess we've had some unnecessary software workarounds for tusb3.1 chips happening :)

Tony

Felipe Balbi

2008-03-31 08:56 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 24 lines · Tony Lindgren

Quoted 23 lines · Andrzej Zaborowski
From: Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
[Sorry, the previous patch was a copy/paste mistake, this one should be better]
I have no access to the docs for this chip but I'm pretty sure the current address of the two DIDR1 registers is wrong because it's outside the TUSB-specific register space. The modified address in turn has a good chance to be correct.
Signed-off-by Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +0 -0
index bb25c3b..f2036ef 100644
@@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 wakeup_enables);
 #define TUSB_PROD_TEST_RESET_VAL		0xa596
 #define TUSB_EP_FIFO(ep)			(TUSB_FIFO_BASE + (ep) * 0x20)
 

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 wakeup_enables); · line 232
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +2 -2
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				0x1f8
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				0x1fc
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1f8)
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1fc)
 #define		TUSB_DIDR1_HI_CHIP_REV(v)		(((v) >> 17) & 0xf)
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_20		0
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_30		1
This looks like a valid fix. Hmm, I guess we've had some unnecessary software workarounds for tusb3.1 chips happening :)

Ugh, I'm out for today and tomorrow but I'll test on wednesday and make sure it works.

thanks, btw.

Signature · 5 lines

Best Regards,

Felipe Balbi
[email protected]
http://blog.felipebalbi.com

andrzej zaborowski

author

2008-03-31 12:52 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 37 lines · Felipe Balbi

Quoted 24 lines · Tony Lindgren
Quoted 23 lines · Andrzej Zaborowski
From: Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
[Sorry, the previous patch was a copy/paste mistake, this one should be better]
I have no access to the docs for this chip but I'm pretty sure the current address of the two DIDR1 registers is wrong because it's outside the TUSB-specific register space. The modified address in turn has a good chance to be correct.
Signed-off-by Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +0 -0
index bb25c3b..f2036ef 100644
@@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 wakeup_enables);
 #define TUSB_PROD_TEST_RESET_VAL           0xa596
 #define TUSB_EP_FIFO(ep)                   (TUSB_FIFO_BASE + (ep) * 0x20)
 
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 wakeup_enables); · line 232
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +2 -2
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO                              0x1f8
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI                              0x1fc
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO                              (TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1f8)
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI                              (TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1fc)
 #define            TUSB_DIDR1_HI_CHIP_REV(v)               (((v) >> 17) & 0xf)
 #define                    TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_20            0
 #define                    TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_30            1
This looks like a valid fix. Hmm, I guess we've had some unnecessary software workarounds for tusb3.1 chips happening :)

Quoted 2 lines

Ugh, I'm out for today and tomorrow but I'll test on wednesday and make
sure it works.

Thanks.

I only checked with usb-net, the only difference was that I got "dieid2" instead of "dieid5" in the dmesg (2 seems correct for rev3.1). The machine is some n810 proto (says N00).

Cheers

Signature · 2 lines

Please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary. Spread
environmental awareness.

Felipe Balbi

Acked-by on v1 1/1

2008-04-02 10:15 UTC #4 lore raw

In reply to Andrzej Zaborowski

Quoted 6 lines · Andrzej Zaborowski

From: Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
[Sorry, the previous patch was a copy/paste mistake, this one should be better]
I have no access to the docs for this chip but I'm pretty sure the

current

Quoted 5 lines

address of the two DIDR1 registers is wrong because it's outside the TUSB-specific register space. The modified address in turn has a good chance to be correct.
Signed-off-by Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>

Acked-by Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>

Quoted 27 lines

---
 drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +2 -2

index bb25c3b..f2036ef 100644
@@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32
 wakeup_enables);
 #define TUSB_PROD_TEST_RESET_VAL		0xa596
 #define TUSB_EP_FIFO(ep)			(TUSB_FIFO_BASE + (ep) * 0x20)
 
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				0x1f8
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				0x1fc
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1f8)
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1fc)
 #define		TUSB_DIDR1_HI_CHIP_REV(v)		(((v) >> 17) & 0xf)
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_20		0

#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_30 1
--
1.5.3.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Signature · 5 lines

Best Regards,

Felipe Balbi
http://felipebalbi.com
[email protected]

Tony Lindgren

2008-04-02 10:46 UTC #5 lore raw

Quoted 9 lines · Felipe Balbi

Quoted 5 lines · Andrzej Zaborowski
From: Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
[Sorry, the previous patch was a copy/paste mistake, this one should be better]

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 1 line
I have no access to the docs for this chip but I'm pretty sure the
current
Quoted 5 lines
address of the two DIDR1 registers is wrong because it's outside the TUSB-specific register space. The modified address in turn has a good chance to be correct.
Signed-off-by Andrzej Zaborowski <[email protected]>
Acked-by Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>

Pushed.

Tony

Quoted 38 lines

Quoted 27 lines

---
 drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h +2 -2

index bb25c3b..f2036ef 100644
@@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32
 wakeup_enables);
 #define TUSB_PROD_TEST_RESET_VAL		0xa596
 #define TUSB_EP_FIFO(ep)			(TUSB_FIFO_BASE + (ep) * 0x20)
 
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				0x1f8
-#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				0x1fc
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1f8)
+#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI				(TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 0x1fc)
 #define		TUSB_DIDR1_HI_CHIP_REV(v)		(((v) >> 17) & 0xf)
 #define			TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_20		0

#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_30 1
--
1.5.3.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Signature · 10 lines

Best Regards,

Felipe Balbi
http://felipebalbi.com
[email protected]

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html