On 02/12/2015 11:26 AM, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 02/11/2015 09:14 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> [150211 13:03]: >>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> >>>> * Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> [150210 18:28]: >>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>>>> On 07/02/2015 00:23, Paul Walmsley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, there is not a single TRM for the omap5910 but individual >>>>>> documents for each chapter in the original TRM. Check out the "OMAP5910 >>>>>> Dual-Core Processor Timer Reference Guide" and possibly the "OMAP5910 >>>>>> Dual-Core Processor Clock Generation and System Reset Management >>>>>> Reference Guide" >>>>>> >>>>>> The omap15xx/5910 did have a 32k timer but as you can see it appears it >>>>>> was never supported by the kernel for this device (not sure why). I do >>>>>> recall that there is some errata regarding the 32k timer, if you look at >>>>>> the omap5910 errata document and search for 32k you should find it. >>>>> >>>>> OK thanks for the context. I probably am not going to investigate adding >>>>> support for this timer on OMAP1510/5910 - am primarily trying to avoid >>>>> causing a regression on the existing platforms. >>>> >>>> At least I've never seen the 32KiHz timer registers in any 15xx >>>> documentation. Jon are you sure you're not mixing up 5910 (15xx) >>>> and 5912 (16xx)? >>> >>> It's documented in the OMAP5910 Timer Reference Guide (SPRU682A) Section 3 >>> "32-kHz Timer", at the link Jon mentioned. Have not checked the errata >>> that Jon mentioned though. >> >> Interesting. Looks like it's the same as on 16xx at 0xfffb9000. >> AFAIK that never worked on 15xx. Or maybe the issue was that 15xx >> is missing the constantly running 32KiHz counter making the timer >> unusable from PM point of view as the clockevent alone is not enough. >> >>> Regarding the patch: I'd suggest keeping the compilation warning fixes >>> (which was the original purpose of the patch) from anything that changes >>> the logic too much. That way if there's an error in the patch that >>> changes the logic and it needs to be reverted, it won't also revert the >>> warning fixes. >> >> Makes sense to me. > > Yes that's fine with me as well, I don't wish to over complicate > matters. I have a couple minor comments though and will respond to the > latest patch rev. Actually, nevermind the latest version is fine with me. Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
