On 04/02/2012 10:58 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On 04/02/2012 10:38 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi Santosh, >>>> >>>> I came across the attached patch from you. I also came across this post >>>> stating that it was decided not to send this patch upstream. >>>> >>>> http://www.digipedia.pl/usenet/thread/18885/8437/#post8496 >>>> >>>> The problem is that we have to keep porting this patch each time we >>>> update the kernel. >>>> >>>> Do you know if the root cause has been found? If not can we have this >>>> patch upstream till the root cause is found? >>>> >>> Yes and fixed in OMAP4460 ES1.2. >> >> Did you mean ES1.1? >> > yep. Sorry for the typo. > >> Could you please point me to the errata ID? The only cache related >> errata I can see is Errata ID: i690 >> >>> >>>> It seems the patch at least makes the kernel usable on ES1.0. >>>> >>> I know but that still is not enough. It's like 80 % WA of the issue >>> seen on ES1.0. We are not suppose to have many boards with >>> ES1.0 >>> >> Even better if there are not many boards. It seems most of the boards >> will be with TI. I think we should have the fix in even if it is not >> 100% fix. >> >> What do you say? >> > My request is to get rid of ES1.0 board because the WA just > not completely correct. Don't feel patching kernel for silicon > which is not suppose to be used nether has complete WA > to support it. > OK Santosh. seems like cache is broken bad on ES1.0. Is it possible to disable the cache for ES1.0 and print a warning message about it? regards, -roger -- 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
