From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] plat-mxc: iomux-v3.h: implicitly enable pull-up/down when that's desired
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:17:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111013071700.GQ13898@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111013071224.GR9395@home.lan>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:12:24AM +0400, Paul Fertser wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:27:02AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:19:23AM +0400, Paul Fertser wrote:
> > > This leads to some rather hard to understand bugs such as
> > > misdetecting an absent ethernet PHY (a real bug i had)
> ...
> > > This might affect mx25, mx35, mx50, mx51 and mx53 SoCs.
> ...
> > > I'm not sure if that's really suitable for -stable so please excuse me
> > > if it's not.
> >
> > I think it's not suitable for stable unless there is a real bug, that
> > is PUE or PKE are forgotten somewhere.
>
> If there wasn't a real bug with MDIO, i wouldn't have found the
> problem. I've also checked all other potentially affected SoCs and all
> of them (except for the mx35, whose iomux file doesn't configure any
> pads at all) had some suspicious entries.
>
> > I don't like that the defines which are supposed to be defines for
> > the individual bits are changed. This may lead to trouble and confusion
> > once someone wants to read the values from the iomux registers and
> > tests for bits. How about Adding new defines like this instead:
>
> I perfectly understand the reasoning and fully agree it would be best
> to do it that way right from the beginning. But given the current
> situation when many affected iomux headers share the error that can
> lead to subtle strange bugs, i thought it might be beneficial to fix
> them all implicitly. And testing for those pull-up bits set without
> testing for PUE/PKE doesn't seem to be of any use, and also before
> sending a patch i did a git grep and found no examples of using those
> constants in an unexpected way.
Ok, convinced. Let's go with your patch for now as it's the least
intrusive way to deal with it. Still I think we should change this
as I suggested later.
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 |
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-13 7:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-10 7:19 [RFC][PATCH] plat-mxc: iomux-v3.h: implicitly enable pull-up/down when that's desired Paul Fertser
2011-10-10 8:14 ` Baruch Siach
2011-10-10 9:54 ` Lothar Waßmann
2011-10-10 10:01 ` Paul Fertser
2011-10-12 8:27 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-10-13 1:48 ` Shawn Guo
2011-10-13 7:12 ` Paul Fertser
2011-10-13 7:17 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111013071700.GQ13898@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).