[PATCH 1/2] imx: mx6ull: fix REFTOP_VBGADJ setting

* [PATCH 1/2] imx: mx6ull: fix REFTOP_VBGADJ setting
@ 2022-01-13 21:57 Dario Binacchi
  2022-01-13 21:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] mx6: crm_regs: drop BM_ANADIG_ANA_MISC0_REFTOP_VBGADJ Dario Binacchi
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dario Binacchi @ 2022-01-13 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot
  Cc: Michael Trimarchi, Dario Binacchi, Bai Ping, Fabio Estevam,
	NXP i.MX U-Boot Team, Peng Fan, Sean Anderson, Stefano Babic

The previous code wrote the contents of the fuse as is in the
REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0], but this was wrong if you consider the contents of
the table in the code comment. This table is also different from the
table in the commit description. But then, which of the two is correct?
If it is assumed that an unprogrammed fuse has a value of 0 then for
backward compatibility of the code REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0] must be set to
6 (b'110). Therefore, the table in the code comment can be considered
correct as well as this patch.

Fixes: 97c16dc8bf098 ("imx: mx6ull: update the REFTOP_VBGADJ setting")
Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
---

 arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c
index aacfc854a2f8..099cb5b12d77 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c
@@ -366,11 +366,13 @@ static void init_bandgap(void)
 	 *	111 - set REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0] to 3b'111,
 	 */
 	if (is_mx6ull()) {
+		static const u32 map[] = {6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0, 7};
+
 		val = readl(&fuse->mem0);
 		val >>= OCOTP_MEM0_REFTOP_TRIM_SHIFT;
 		val &= 0x7;
 
-		writel(val << BM_ANADIG_ANA_MISC0_REFTOP_VBGADJ_SHIFT,
+		writel(map[val] << BM_ANADIG_ANA_MISC0_REFTOP_VBGADJ_SHIFT,
 		       &anatop->ana_misc0_set);
 	}
 }
-- 
2.32.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread