On 11/30/2015 07:27 PM, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Montag, den 16.11.2015, 14:24 +0200 schrieb Grygorii Strashko: >> On 11/16/2015 01:25 PM, Lucas Stach wrote: >>> omap_interconnect_sync() is the only user of the SRAM scratch area >>> allocated in the omap4_sram_init initcall. The interconnect sync is >>> used exclusively in the OMAP4 specific WFI implementation, so there >>> is no point in allocating the SRAM scratch on other SoC types. >>> >>> Bail out of the initcall if the kernel is not running on OMAP4 to >>> avoid a confusing warning about being unable to allocate the SRAM >>> needed for I688 handling. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Tested-by: Bastian Stender <bst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c >>> index 949696b6f17b..6db393a30a28 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap4-common.c >>> @@ -131,6 +131,9 @@ static int __init omap4_sram_init(void) >>> struct device_node *np; >>> struct gen_pool *sram_pool; >>> >>> + if (!cpu_is_omap44xx()) >>> + return 0; >> >> This one affects on am43xx also >> > So you are saying this erratum is also present on AM43xx? I wasn't able > to deduce this from the information provided by Richard Woodruff. > "..SOCs using similar chassis components of OMAP4430 time are impacted..." "..But AM335x should be immune from this particular issue..." Advisory 11 Asynchronous Bridge Corruption http://www.ti.com/lit/er/sprz408b/sprz408b.pdf >> >>> + >>> np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "ti,omap4-mpu"); >>> if (!np) >>> pr_warn("%s:Unable to allocate sram needed to handle errata I688\n", >> >> Since all OMAP4+ platforms are now DT based why can't we just return from here silently? >> > If we are unable to allocate the SRAM needed to work around I688 this is > a real error on platforms that expose this erratum, so silently bailing > out at this point may obscure a real issue. > SRAM is not allocated here - It's just check to understand do we need it or not in case of multiplatform build where CONFIG_OMAP_INTERCONNECT_BARRIER will be selected most probably. And if "ti,omap4-mpu" was not found - it just means that this, particular, platform is not affected by i688 errata. If someone misses corresponding node in DT - we can't do nothing :) -- regards, -grygorii -- 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
