* [PATCH] ARM: S5P64X0: Fix mask value for S5P64X0 CPU IDs
@ 2011-09-02 14:02 Ajay Kumar
2011-09-05 10:22 ` Kukjin Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ajay Kumar @ 2011-09-02 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
The current value for S5P64XX_CPU_MASK does not include the necessary
bits, which causes detection failure.
Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar <ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com>
---
arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
index aa1f69b..897d161 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id;
#define S5P6440_CPU_ID 0x56440000
#define S5P6450_CPU_ID 0x36450000
-#define S5P64XX_CPU_MASK 0x1FF40000
+#define S5P64XX_CPU_MASK 0x7FFF0000
#define S5PC100_CPU_ID 0x43100000
#define S5PC100_CPU_MASK 0xFFFFF000
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: S5P64X0: Fix mask value for S5P64X0 CPU IDs
2011-09-02 14:02 [PATCH] ARM: S5P64X0: Fix mask value for S5P64X0 CPU IDs Ajay Kumar
@ 2011-09-05 10:22 ` Kukjin Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Kukjin Kim @ 2011-09-05 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Ajay Kumar wrote:
>
> The current value for S5P64XX_CPU_MASK does not include the necessary
> bits, which causes detection failure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar <ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-
> samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
> index aa1f69b..897d161 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id;
>
> #define S5P6440_CPU_ID 0x56440000
> #define S5P6450_CPU_ID 0x36450000
> -#define S5P64XX_CPU_MASK 0x1FF40000
> +#define S5P64XX_CPU_MASK 0x7FFF0000
>
> #define S5PC100_CPU_ID 0x43100000
> #define S5PC100_CPU_MASK 0xFFFFF000
> --
> 1.7.2.3
Yes, you're right.
But in this case, 0xFFFFF000 is better than 0x7FFF0000.
If any problems with above value, please let me know.
Will apply, thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-05 10:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-02 14:02 [PATCH] ARM: S5P64X0: Fix mask value for S5P64X0 CPU IDs Ajay Kumar
2011-09-05 10:22 ` Kukjin Kim
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).