Hello Rouven,
On 13/4/19 10:49, Rouven Czerwinski wrote:
> Neither of the two devices has an IPU, disable the setup for both SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rouven Czerwinski <r.czerwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c
> index 01b4274ed3..6c08f22b7a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx6.c
> @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ static void imx6_setup_ipu_qos(void)
> uint32_t val;
>
> if (!cpu_mx6_is_mx6q() && !cpu_mx6_is_mx6d() &&
> - !cpu_mx6_is_mx6dl() && cpu_mx6_is_mx6s())
> + !cpu_mx6_is_mx6dl() && (cpu_mx6_is_mx6s() || cpu_mx6_is_mx6ul() ||
> + cpu_is_mx6ull()))
That looks wrong to me. The patch that introduced it was 4e6e8f73e9
("ARM: imx6: don't execute IPU QoS setup on MX6 SX/SL"), but instead
it bails at the Solo, not the SX and SL.
It seems to me, the original intent was
if (!cpu_mx6_is_mx6q() && !cpu_mx6_is_mx6d() &&
!cpu_mx6_is_mx6dl() && !cpu_mx6_is_mx6s())
which would be correct and solve your issue with the UL(L) as well.
Applying such a change however would break backwards-compatibility,
but it was agreed[1] that fixing these quriky conditionals at the
cost of backwards-compatibility is acceptable.
Generally, you should always explicitly list the _affected_ SoC variants in
such conditionals, not the one which _aren't currently_ affected.
Otherwise you risk inconsistencies when code is updated to support newer
SoC variants.
[1]: Message-Id:<bbe97cb3-2e21-2eb2-a727-5b1014d3fd73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers
Ahmad
> return;
>
> val = readl(iomux + IOMUXC_GPR4);
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
