From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Przywara?= Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:13 +0000 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 11/12] Xilinx ZynqMP: fix minimum SDHCI frequency In-Reply-To: References: <1479257416-29389-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1479257416-29389-12-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <6adcda01-8e43-6f28-eb15-88616f0f595c@xilinx.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 16/11/16 06:37, Michal Simek wrote: Hi Michal, > On 16.11.2016 07:34, Michal Simek wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 16.11.2016 01:50, Andre Przywara wrote: >>> It seems pretty odd that the minimum supported SDHCI frequency is >>> the maximum frequency shifted _left_ by 9 bits. >>> Shifting it right by that amount seems to make much more sense. >>> >>> Pointed out by GCC 6.2 as the value needs more than 32 bits. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara >>> --- >>> include/configs/xilinx_zynqmp_ep.h | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/configs/xilinx_zynqmp_ep.h b/include/configs/xilinx_zynqmp_ep.h >>> index 8e4b960..d0ce768 100644 >>> --- a/include/configs/xilinx_zynqmp_ep.h >>> +++ b/include/configs/xilinx_zynqmp_ep.h >>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ >>> #define __CONFIG_ZYNQMP_EP_H >>> >>> #define CONFIG_ZYNQ_SDHCI_MAX_FREQ 52000000 >>> -#define CONFIG_ZYNQ_SDHCI_MIN_FREQ (CONFIG_ZYNQ_SDHCI_MAX_FREQ << 9) >>> +#define CONFIG_ZYNQ_SDHCI_MIN_FREQ (CONFIG_ZYNQ_SDHCI_MAX_FREQ >> 9) >>> #define CONFIG_ZYNQ_EEPROM >>> #define CONFIG_SATA_CEVA >>> #define CONFIG_ZYNQMP_XHCI_LIST {ZYNQMP_USB0_XHCI_BASEADDR, \ >>> >> >> thanks for the patch. We have fixed that in our internal repo but didn't >> send this out yet. >> >> Here is the link >> https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/299ceaf77ee6d5a555ecb5f129bd9248aa981837 >> >> Definitely it is good patch and will apply. > > ok - it is already the part of my pull request I sent yesterday > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-November/272771.html Even better! Out of curiosity: How did you spot this? Was is actually causing problems or was it GCC 6.x as well? Anyway glad to see it fixed already. Cheers, Andre.