From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: mx5: Allow CCM definitions to work on MX51 and MX53 In-Reply-To: References: <1314386521-29351-1-git-send-email-fabio.estevam@freescale.com> <20110827111943.GK31404@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20110827183922.GL31404@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:17:47PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:21:57PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > >> Allow CCM (Clock Control Module) definitions to work on MX51 and MX53 > >> by checking the cpu type in run-time and using the appropriate register bases. > > > > They already work on i.MX51 and i.MX53. They have different physical > > addresses, but have (more or less accidently...) the same virtual > > address. > > Without this patch I get a kernel crash on MX53 at > arch/arm/mach-mx5/system.c , when trying to read > the following registers CCM registers: The CCM base address is AIPS1 + x whereas the ARM base address is AIPS2 + x. Maybe only the AIPS1 base addresses are the same. Anyway, I would prefer having the registers defines as offsets to a base and not as absolute addresses. Looking back it was a mistake merging this. Having the registers as offsets is much more flexible. Sascha -- 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 |