* [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
@ 2010-04-01 9:48 ` Nicolas Ferre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Ferre @ 2010-04-01 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel, avictor.za; +Cc: linux-kernel, Nicolas Ferre
A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h
index 5a06501..833659d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9260 0x019803a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9261 0x019703a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9263 0x019607a0
-#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x819903a0
+#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G20 0x019905a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9RL64 0x019b03a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45 0x819b05a0
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static inline unsigned long at91cap9_rev_identify(void)
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9G10
-#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() (at91_cpu_identify() == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
+#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() ((at91_cpu_identify() & ~AT91_CIDR_EXT) == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
#else
#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() (0)
#endif
--
1.5.6.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
@ 2010-04-01 9:48 ` Nicolas Ferre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Ferre @ 2010-04-01 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h
index 5a06501..833659d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9260 0x019803a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9261 0x019703a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9263 0x019607a0
-#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x819903a0
+#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G20 0x019905a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9RL64 0x019b03a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45 0x819b05a0
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static inline unsigned long at91cap9_rev_identify(void)
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9G10
-#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() (at91_cpu_identify() == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
+#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() ((at91_cpu_identify() & ~AT91_CIDR_EXT) == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
#else
#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() (0)
#endif
--
1.5.6.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
2010-04-01 9:48 ` Nicolas Ferre
@ 2010-04-12 18:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2010-04-12 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Ferre; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, avictor.za, linux-kernel
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:48:56AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
> Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
An ack from Andrew would be nice to have.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
@ 2010-04-12 18:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2010-04-12 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:48:56AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
> Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
An ack from Andrew would be nice to have.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
2010-04-01 9:48 ` Nicolas Ferre
@ 2010-04-13 7:42 ` Andrew Victor
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Victor @ 2010-04-13 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Ferre; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
hi Nicolas,
> A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
> Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
> -#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x819903a0
> +#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
> -#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() (at91_cpu_identify() == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
> +#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() ((at91_cpu_identify() & ~AT91_CIDR_EXT) == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
Wouldn't it be better to just mask out the AT91_CIDR_EXT bit in
at91_cpu_identify()?
That bit isn't really useful for "version" information.
We'd then just need to modify:
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45 0x019b05a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45MRL 0x019b05a2 /* aka 9G45-ES2 &
non ES lots */
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45ES 0x019b05a1 /* 9G45-ES
(Engineering Sample) */
(ie, drop bit AT91_CIDR_EXT)
Regards,
Andrew Victor
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
@ 2010-04-13 7:42 ` Andrew Victor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Victor @ 2010-04-13 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
hi Nicolas,
> A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
> Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
> -#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 ? ?0x819903a0
> +#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 ? ?0x019903a0
> -#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() ? (at91_cpu_identify() == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
> +#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() ? ((at91_cpu_identify() & ~AT91_CIDR_EXT) == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
Wouldn't it be better to just mask out the AT91_CIDR_EXT bit in
at91_cpu_identify()?
That bit isn't really useful for "version" information.
We'd then just need to modify:
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45 0x019b05a0
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45MRL 0x019b05a2 /* aka 9G45-ES2 &
non ES lots */
#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45ES 0x019b05a1 /* 9G45-ES
(Engineering Sample) */
(ie, drop bit AT91_CIDR_EXT)
Regards,
Andrew Victor
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
2010-04-13 7:42 ` Andrew Victor
@ 2010-04-14 8:14 ` Nicolas Ferre
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Ferre @ 2010-04-14 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Victor; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Le 13/04/2010 09:42, Andrew Victor :
> hi Nicolas,
>
>> A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
>> Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
>
>> -#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x819903a0
>> +#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
>
>> -#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() (at91_cpu_identify() == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
>> +#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() ((at91_cpu_identify() & ~AT91_CIDR_EXT) == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to just mask out the AT91_CIDR_EXT bit in
> at91_cpu_identify()?
> That bit isn't really useful for "version" information.
>
> We'd then just need to modify:
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45 0x019b05a0
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45MRL 0x019b05a2 /* aka 9G45-ES2 &
> non ES lots */
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45ES 0x019b05a1 /* 9G45-ES
> (Engineering Sample) */
> (ie, drop bit AT91_CIDR_EXT)
I do not think it is a good idea:
1/ a little issue appears with AT91SAM9G45ES that is using the
at91_cpu_fully_identify() functions.
2/ we do not exclude raising the extended bit after a chip has been
created to introduce a variant of this chip. If we mask out the
AT91_CIDR_EXT bit in at91_cpu_identify() we will not be able to identify
this new variant as being different from the original chip.
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Ferre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
@ 2010-04-14 8:14 ` Nicolas Ferre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Ferre @ 2010-04-14 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Le 13/04/2010 09:42, Andrew Victor :
> hi Nicolas,
>
>> A bit in the at91sam9g10 identification number changed between Engineering
>> Sample and final product. This patch will identify both as being at91sam9g10.
>
>> -#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x819903a0
>> +#define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
>
>> -#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() (at91_cpu_identify() == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
>> +#define cpu_is_at91sam9g10() ((at91_cpu_identify() & ~AT91_CIDR_EXT) == ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10)
>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to just mask out the AT91_CIDR_EXT bit in
> at91_cpu_identify()?
> That bit isn't really useful for "version" information.
>
> We'd then just need to modify:
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G10 0x019903a0
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45 0x019b05a0
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45MRL 0x019b05a2 /* aka 9G45-ES2 &
> non ES lots */
> #define ARCH_ID_AT91SAM9G45ES 0x019b05a1 /* 9G45-ES
> (Engineering Sample) */
> (ie, drop bit AT91_CIDR_EXT)
I do not think it is a good idea:
1/ a little issue appears with AT91SAM9G45ES that is using the
at91_cpu_fully_identify() functions.
2/ we do not exclude raising the extended bit after a chip has been
created to introduce a variant of this chip. If we mask out the
AT91_CIDR_EXT bit in at91_cpu_identify() we will not be able to identify
this new variant as being different from the original chip.
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Ferre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
2010-04-14 8:14 ` Nicolas Ferre
@ 2010-04-14 15:01 ` Andrew Victor
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Victor @ 2010-04-14 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Ferre; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
hi Nicolas,
> I do not think it is a good idea:
Ok. Then we'll go with your original patch.
Acked-by: Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
@ 2010-04-14 15:01 ` Andrew Victor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Victor @ 2010-04-14 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
hi Nicolas,
> I do not think it is a good idea:
Ok. Then we'll go with your original patch.
Acked-by: Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
2010-04-14 15:01 ` Andrew Victor
@ 2010-04-14 15:40 ` Nicolas Ferre
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Ferre @ 2010-04-14 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Victor; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Le 14/04/2010 17:01, Andrew Victor :
> hi Nicolas,
>
>> I do not think it is a good idea:
>
> Ok. Then we'll go with your original patch.
>
> Acked-by: Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>
Queued in patch tracking system as 6056/1:
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=6056/1
Thanks, bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed
@ 2010-04-14 15:40 ` Nicolas Ferre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Ferre @ 2010-04-14 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Le 14/04/2010 17:01, Andrew Victor :
> hi Nicolas,
>
>> I do not think it is a good idea:
>
> Ok. Then we'll go with your original patch.
>
> Acked-by: Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>
Queued in patch tracking system as 6056/1:
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=6056/1
Thanks, bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-14 15:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-04-01 9:48 [PATCH] AT91: at91sam9g10 chip identification changed Nicolas Ferre
2010-04-01 9:48 ` Nicolas Ferre
2010-04-12 18:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-12 18:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-13 7:42 ` Andrew Victor
2010-04-13 7:42 ` Andrew Victor
2010-04-14 8:14 ` Nicolas Ferre
2010-04-14 8:14 ` Nicolas Ferre
2010-04-14 15:01 ` Andrew Victor
2010-04-14 15:01 ` Andrew Victor
2010-04-14 15:40 ` Nicolas Ferre
2010-04-14 15:40 ` Nicolas Ferre
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.