Hello Eero,
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, ext-eero.nurkkala@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Eero Nurkkala <ext-eero.nurkkala@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> It is the bit 8 that is for FCLK. All other blocks in
> OMAPs use the bit 8 for denying FCLK idling.
Hmm. Looking at the 34xx Rev O TRM register tables, it looks like most
modules use bit 9 to indicate that FCLK should be kept on and bit 8 to
indicate that the ICLK should be kept on? DSI, DISPC, SR, DMA4 are some
examples.
This of course contradicts some of the text, such as Table 16-6, 16-60,
and 18-4. CLOCKACTIVITY bits seem to attract documentation bugs; Table
4-554 and 15.3.1.4.1 are other examples.
> This is an RFC, I'd like some discussion. Somebody
> double-check this?
Suggest you doublecheck with TI. Richard Woodruff cc'ed; he might be able
to clarify.
- Paul
>
> Signed-off-by: Eero Nurkkala <ext-eero.nurkkala@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
> index 0258b55..11057eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c
> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@
> #define SYSC_AUTOIDLE_MASK (1 << 0)
>
> #define SYSC_IDLEMODE_SMART 0x2
> -#define SYSC_CLOCKACTIVITY_FCLK 0x2
> +#define SYSC_CLOCKACTIVITY_FCLK 0x1
>
>
> struct omap_i2c_dev {
> --
> 1.5.2
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
