On 07/02/2012 11:35 PM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 22:59:03, Hunter, Jon wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 04:43 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
>
>>> Not sure whether you are fine with fixing up this patch with added diff
>>>
>>> Assuming inferences so far is not wrong, right now this patch with the added diff
>>> would be perfectly fine.
>>>
>>> Problem would happen when we are at a stage to do gpmc reset using hwmod [seems
>>> miles to go before I sleep {or read gpmc hwmod reset} ;)]. If bootloader left
>>> onenand configured in sync mode, to switch onenand to async mode, first configuring
>>> gpmc to sync mode would be required & for that we need frequency information
>>> from onenand and to get that information from onenand, gpmc has to be configured
>>> for sync mode and to configure gpmc to sync mode ....
>>
>> You are concerned about hwmod performing a reset of the gpmc during
>> boot? We should be able to use the HWMOD_INIT_NO_RESET flag to prevent
>> this. Would that work?
>
> Yes that will work in the short term, the reason I am trying to avoid no
> reset flag in the long term is to prevent this board support being broken,
> please refer Paul's requirement [1] in accepting gpmc hwmod patch
Ok, thanks for the reminder.
So we have 2 options here ...
1. Use the HWMOD_INIT_NO_RESET for now and your updated version of this
patch
2. See if there is a gpio available to control the OneNAND reset on the
n900.
Do you agree? Any other options?
Cheers
Jon
--
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
