Ajay Kumar wrote: > > The current value for S5P64XX_CPU_MASK does not include the necessary > bits, which causes detection failure. > > Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar <ajaykumar.rs@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat- > samsung/include/plat/cpu.h > index aa1f69b..897d161 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id; > > #define S5P6440_CPU_ID 0x56440000 > #define S5P6450_CPU_ID 0x36450000 > -#define S5P64XX_CPU_MASK 0x1FF40000 > +#define S5P64XX_CPU_MASK 0x7FFF0000 > > #define S5PC100_CPU_ID 0x43100000 > #define S5PC100_CPU_MASK 0xFFFFF000 > -- > 1.7.2.3 Yes, you're right. But in this case, 0xFFFFF000 is better than 0x7FFF0000. If any problems with above value, please let me know. Will apply, thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., 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
 |