diff mbox

[U-Boot,v2] OMAP5: Fix bug in omap5_es1_prcm struct

Message ID a837b6fdb7af1674ffee3cf0bd05ca64.squirrel@www.mm-sol.com
State Accepted
Delegated to: Tom Rini
Headers show

Commit Message

Lubomir Popov May 26, 2013, 8:03 p.m. UTC
The newly introduced function setup_warmreset_time(), called
from within prcm_init(), tries to write to the prm_rsttime
OMAP5 register. The struct member holding this register's
address is however initialized for OMAP5 ES2.0 only. On ES1.0
devices this uninitialized value causes a second (warm) reset
at startup.

Add .prm_rsttime address init to the ES1.0 struct.

Signed-off-by: Lubomir Popov <lpopov@mm-sol.com>
---
V2 gives the correct prm_rsttime reg address for ES1.0. Copy-paste
from ES2.0 in V1, sorry.

 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Tom Rini May 28, 2013, 9:03 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:03:17PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote:

> The newly introduced function setup_warmreset_time(), called
> from within prcm_init(), tries to write to the prm_rsttime
> OMAP5 register. The struct member holding this register's
> address is however initialized for OMAP5 ES2.0 only. On ES1.0
> devices this uninitialized value causes a second (warm) reset
> at startup.
> 
> Add .prm_rsttime address init to the ES1.0 struct.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Popov <lpopov@mm-sol.com>

Acked-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
Lubomir Popov June 6, 2013, 9:02 a.m. UTC | #2
Hi Tom,

On 26/05/13 23:03, Lubomir Popov wrote:
> The newly introduced function setup_warmreset_time(), called
> from within prcm_init(), tries to write to the prm_rsttime
> OMAP5 register. The struct member holding this register's
> address is however initialized for OMAP5 ES2.0 only. On ES1.0
> devices this uninitialized value causes a second (warm) reset
> at startup.
> 
> Add .prm_rsttime address init to the ES1.0 struct.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Popov <lpopov@mm-sol.com>
> ---
> V2 gives the correct prm_rsttime reg address for ES1.0. Copy-paste
> from ES2.0 in V1, sorry.
> 
>  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c
> index e9f6a32..f29ac77 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c
> @@ -298,6 +298,7 @@ struct prcm_regs const omap5_es1_prcm = {
>  	.cm_wkupaon_io_srcomp_clkctrl = 0x4ae07898,
>  	.prm_rstctrl = 0x4ae07b00,
>  	.prm_rstst = 0x4ae07b04,
> +	.prm_rsttime = 0x4ae07b08,
>  	.prm_vc_val_bypass = 0x4ae07ba0,
>  	.prm_vc_cfg_i2c_mode = 0x4ae07bb4,
>  	.prm_vc_cfg_i2c_clk = 0x4ae07bb8,
> 

Could you please apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/246454/
to the ti tree? This is the only obstacle for my board to boot
normally with a clean u-boot-ti in respect to the OMAP5 common
stuff.

Thanks,
Lubo
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c
index e9f6a32..f29ac77 100644
--- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c
+++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap5/prcm-regs.c
@@ -298,6 +298,7 @@  struct prcm_regs const omap5_es1_prcm = {
 	.cm_wkupaon_io_srcomp_clkctrl = 0x4ae07898,
 	.prm_rstctrl = 0x4ae07b00,
 	.prm_rstst = 0x4ae07b04,
+	.prm_rsttime = 0x4ae07b08,
 	.prm_vc_val_bypass = 0x4ae07ba0,
 	.prm_vc_cfg_i2c_mode = 0x4ae07bb4,
 	.prm_vc_cfg_i2c_clk = 0x4ae07bb8,