* Venkatraman S <svenkatr@xxxxxx> [100426 07:46]:
> Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Venkatraman S <svenkatr@xxxxxx> [100419 03:47]:
> >> Hi Tony,
> >> > Venkatraman S <svenkatr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > From 2799506180649cbb61d24cf2b4171425b2e1fa80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> > From: Venkatraman S <svenkatr@xxxxxx>
> >> > Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:56:27 +0530
> >> > Subject: [PATCH] dma: fix scope of errata i88 upto 3430ES1.0
> >> >
> >> > DMA errata for special end of block programming is applicable
> >> > only for OMAP2430 & OMAP3430 ES1.0.
> >> > This patch does the necessary checks before the workaround
> >> > is applied. Tested on 3430 SDP
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara@xxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Venkatraman S <svenkatr@xxxxxx>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Shilimkar Santosh <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > From v1, removed the redundant omap3430() check
> >> >
> >> > arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> >> > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
> >> > index 2ab224c..a9b480a 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
> >> > @@ -1663,14 +1663,17 @@ int omap_stop_dma_chain_transfers(int chain_id)
> >> > channels = dma_linked_lch[chain_id].linked_dmach_q;
> >> >
> >> > /*
> >> > - * DMA Errata:
> >> > - * Special programming model needed to disable DMA before end of block
> >> > + * DMA Errata: i88
> >> > + * Special programming model needed
> >> > + * to disable DMA before end of block
> >> > */
> >> > sys_cf = dma_read(OCP_SYSCONFIG);
> >> > - l = sys_cf;
> >> > - /* Middle mode reg set no Standby */
> >> > - l &= ~((1 << 12)|(1 << 13));
> >> > - dma_write(l, OCP_SYSCONFIG);
> >> > + if (cpu_is_omap2430() || (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0)) {
> >> > + l = sys_cf;
> >> > + /* Middle mode reg set no Standby */
> >> > + l &= ~((1 << 12)|(1 << 13));
> >> > + dma_write(l, OCP_SYSCONFIG);
> >> > + }
> >> >
> >> > for (i = 0; i < dma_linked_lch[chain_id].no_of_lchs_linked; i++) {
> >> >
> >
> > What about other omaps? It seems that we're currently doing the workaround
> > for all omaps. Seems like "Tested on 3430 SDP" is not quite safe enough
> > for making change that might affect other omaps.
> >
> > Tony
>
> The Errata document specifically mentions that the workaround is
> needed only for
> 3430 ES1.0 or earlier. I had actually tested on the ES2.0. [Now that
> you have mentioned it,
> I tested on 3630 and 4430 as well]
> Let me know if you need more test results or information.
Uhh. The old code does this for all omaps. I rather trust the existing
than TI documentation. What about 2420 and 2430?
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
