From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:19:02 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: handle additional timings In-Reply-To: References: <4FD63DBF.9000200@ti.com> <4FD77E35.3050703@ti.com> <20120613113217.GK12766@atomide.com> <20120613115445.GM12766@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20120614101901.GI12766@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Mohammed, Afzal [120614 03:15]: > Hi Tony, > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 17:28:33, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 17:24:45, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > If there's a chance it causing file system corruption, we should > > > > test it carefully on the boards before applying. If that's done, > > > > then there's probably no need for warnings. It's safer to disable > > > > NAND for untested boards if there's a chance of breaking the timings. > > > > > > Actually this patch breaks at least DMA on tusb6010 on n8x0. That's > > > a MUSB hardware in a wrapper connected to GPMC that's very picky with > > > the timings. > > > > > > Got any hints what should be done with the cycle2cycle stuff for > > > tusb6010? > > > > Not as of now, let me try to find out. > > Probably with the below patch [1], we can get values set by bootloader & > calculate back value to entered in Kernel, of course that may not work > if tusb6010 works with different gpmc i/p frequency. Well I took a look at the values, and it seems the only difference is the static GPMC_CONFIG1_CLKACTIVATIONTIME(1) that your patch now overwrites 0. Tony