Am Mittwoch, den 14.09.2016, 09:56 +0200 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> The check for is_imx6q was introduced initially in
>
> f1f6d76370b3 ("ARM: i.MX6: correct work flow of PFDs from uboot-sources")
>
> to differentiate between i.MX6DL+i.MX6SL and i.MX6Q. The i.MX6D must be
> handled like the latter, so drop the check. i.MX6DL+i.MX6SL can be
> ignored here since since
>
> a66596282413 ("imx6: lowlevel_init: Fix workaround for new i.MX6s chips")
>
> the PFD handling is only done for i.MX6DQ.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c
> index ba8fb8964ac8..4391839a0b7e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ void imx6_init_lowlevel(void)
The comment right above this code block isn't reflecting reality anymore
after this change. Please fix it up.
Regards,
Lucas
> BM_ANADIG_PFD_480_PFD0_CLKGATE,
> MX6_ANATOP_BASE_ADDR + HW_ANADIG_PFD_480_SET);
> writel(BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD3_CLKGATE |
> - (is_imx6q ? BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD2_CLKGATE : 0) |
> + BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD2_CLKGATE |
> BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD1_CLKGATE |
> BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD0_CLKGATE,
> MX6_ANATOP_BASE_ADDR + HW_ANADIG_PFD_528_SET);
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ void imx6_init_lowlevel(void)
> BM_ANADIG_PFD_480_PFD0_CLKGATE,
> MX6_ANATOP_BASE_ADDR + HW_ANADIG_PFD_480_CLR);
> writel(BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD3_CLKGATE |
> - (is_imx6q ? BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD2_CLKGATE : 0) |
> + BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD2_CLKGATE |
> BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD1_CLKGATE |
> BM_ANADIG_PFD_528_PFD0_CLKGATE,
> MX6_ANATOP_BASE_ADDR + HW_ANADIG_PFD_528_CLR);
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
