From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JjQstCw0LnQu9C+INCU0LjQvNC40YLRgNC+0LI=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:30:07 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <24838523.73311.1364448607026.JavaMail.apache@mail82.abv.bg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: pali.rohar@gmail.com, nm@ti.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Tony, Who do you expect to make that code merge? Do you expect us to mechanic= ally merge RX51 PPA API patch with the existing generic OMAP PPA API co= de putting #ifdefs all over the place? Not that it is impossible, but t= he only real piece of HW I have here is n900, so I just can't be sure t= he code will still work on the other platforms besides RX51, once the c= ode modified. Please, advice on how to proceed. Regards, Ivo >-------- =D0=9E=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=B3=D0=B8=D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BB=D0=BD=D0=BE= =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=BC=D0=BE -------- >=D0=9E=D1=82: Tony Lindgren=20 >=D0=9E=D1=82=D0=BD=D0=BE=D1=81=D0=BD=D0=BE: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX= -51: ARM errata 430973 workaround >=D0=94=D0=BE: Pali Roh=C3=A1r=20 >=D0=98=D0=B7=D0=BF=D1=80=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BE =D0=BD=D0=B0: = =D0=A1=D1=80=D1=8F=D0=B4=D0=B0, 2013, =D0=9C=D0=B0=D1=80=D1=82 27 23:12= :09 EET > > >* Pali Roh=C3=A1r [130327 14:09]: >> On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:56:07 Tony Lindgren wrote: >> > * Pali Roh=C3=A1r [130324 07:31]: >> > > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for >> > > RX-51? >> >=20 >> > I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for >> > ARM. >> >=20 >> > AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various >> > implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters >> > seems like it should be generic. >> >=20 >>=20 >> Not only, look at freemangordon's email:=20 >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/1/62 > >Seem like you may need some SoC specific wrapper to the >generic function to deal with the params. But still seems >like we can have an ARM generic smc funtion. > >Regards, > >Tony >