Seungwon, On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Seungwon, > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sorry for late response. >> Yes, it's not clear. >> If you get the confirmation, could you share this problem? >> Possibly, auto-clear may not be implemented. >> Then, manual should be correct. > > I just got an update from my contacts. They confirm that bit 11 is > not automatically cleared and that writing to it will clear it. > Hopefully this information will make it into the next version of any > documentation that you receive as well. > > It is still unclear exactly why the WAKEUP_INT was being asserted on > our board despite the fact that all of the wakeup control signals > (bits 10:8) were 0. That is still being investigated. I have further confirmed from my contacts at Samsung that this is a real silicon errata and that clearing the WAKEUP_INT as I am doing in this series is the right workaround. New patch coming shortly based against ToT linux (v3.11-rc4-20-g0fff106). I have confirmed that it applies cleanly to mmc-next, though I haven't tried booting with that tree. -- 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
 |