* Jon Hunter <jgchunter@xxxxxxxxx> [150212 04:37]: > > 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 Applying the second version into omap-for-v4.1/fixes-not-urgent. Regards, Tony -- 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
