On 24.06.2021 16:23, Alan Stern wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 06:40:25AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 23.06.2021 19:41, Alan Stern wrote: >>> Are there any systems beside the SAMA7G5 and others you tested which >>> might be affected by this patch? Do they all work pretty much the >>> same way? (I want to make sure no others will be adversely affected >>> by this change.) >> >> I tested it on SAMA7G5, SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60. I tested the suspend/resume >> to/from mem. On SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60 there is no clock provided by >> transceiver A to OHCI. I encountered no issues on tested systems. These IPs >> are also present on SAMA5D3 and SAMA5D4 systems which I haven't tested as I >> expect to behave as SAMA5D2 (as the clocking scheme is the same with >> SAMA5D2). I can also try it on a SAMA5D3 (I don't have a SAMA5D4 with me at >> the moment), tough, just to be sure nothing is broken there too. > > That doesn't answer my question. I asked if there were any systems > which might be affected by your patch, and you listed a bunch of > systems that _aren't_ affected (that is, they continue to work > properly). I wrongly understood the initial question. > > What systems might run into trouble with this patch? These are all I haven't tested and might be affected: AT91RM9200, SAM9260, SAM9261, SAM9263, SAM9N12, SAM9X35, SAM9G45. The last two (SAM9X35 and SAM9G45) have the same clocking scheme with SAMA5D2 (which I tested). For the rest of them I cannot find the clocking scheme in datasheets and don't have them to test (at least at the moment). Thank you, Claudiu Beznea > > Alan Stern >
