On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:39 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> >> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> >> >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> >> > >> >> (snip) > >> >> > >> >> > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's > >> >> > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision > >> >> > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. > >> >> > > >> >> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of > >> >> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... > >> >> > >> >> > What about the following patch? > >> >> > > >> >> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? > >> > > >> > Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a > >> > sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little > >> > else we can do than poke both locations and pray. > >> > > >> > Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? > >> > >> It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has > >> bug and need to workaround. > >> > >> platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP > >> codes. how to handle it. > > > > So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and > > running on my board. > > > > Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC? > > Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately > > the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject. > > It can be distinguished by chip id. but there's no code to handle this one. > > 0x4320 0200 EVT0 > 0x4321 0210 EVT1 > 0x4321 0211 EVT2 Apparently, the low 8 bits can be overloaded by the efuse. Which makes telling EVT1 from EVT2 unreliable. But at least this is a start. I'll see if I can come up with something minimal enough to be merged as a fix. Thanks, M. -- Reality is an implementation detail. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |