On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:29 AM, padma venkat <padma.kvr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Jassi, >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, padma venkat <padma.kvr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tony, >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tony Nadackal <tonykn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> Hi Padma, >> >>>> With regards to your patch, even though one can check the tx done status >> >>>> using the TX_DONE bit, the present macro itself would work perfectly fine if >> >>>> the 'fifo_lvl_mask' is set properly. >> >>>> For example in 6450 channel 1, the fifo_lvl_mask should be 0x1ff (for 9bits, >> >>>> 15:23), while even in your patch, it is wrongly set as 0x7f(only 7bits). >> >>>> >> >>>> Thus, if this fifo_lvl_mask was defined correctly, the existing macro would >> >>>> itself have worked. >> >>> Thanks for your comment. >> >>> I considered changing to the fifo_lvl_mask to 1ff as you mentioned. >> >>> But I think that the fifo_lvl_mask reflects the actual FIFO capacity >> >>> in the SPI driver. >> >>> For the failing channels the FIFO trigger level is 64 bytes and so i >> >>> retained that value. >> >>> In the driver it polls till the FIFO capacity level otherwise it goes >> >>> for DMA.So if we keep >> >>> the FIFO level as 1ff when the actual capacity is 7f then it fails. >> >>> >> >>> Jassi what do you think about this? >> >>> >> >> >> >> 'fifo_lvl_mask' is h/w specific and can't be set for convenience. >> >> >> >> I don't have access to post-s3c64xx datasheets. >> >> Please check and reply if TX_DONE bit is at same offset for all >> >> channels of an SoC, because >> >> I suspect it's otherwise. >> >> >> > Yes. The TX_DONE bit is at the same offset for all the channels of an SoC. >> > in S5P64X0,S5PV210 and S5PV310 it is at offset 25. >> > >> >> Then, Patches-1,2 >> >> Acked-by: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> > > Are these bug fixes that should be in v3.0, or do I queue them up for v3.1? Regardless, this one touches a lot of arch/arm files, so I'd rather see both patches go through the samsung tree: Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > g. > > -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. -- 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
 |