From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db9lp0253.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F30A2C00A6 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:46:51 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <521AB457.3030009@freescale.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:50:15 +0800 From: Zhang Haijun MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4 V2] mmc: esdhc: workaround for dma err in the last system transaction References: <1374055891-20703-1-git-send-email-Haijun.Zhang@freescale.com> <99E897753B6F7048BD8CCDB4661D02E13DF52C@039-SN2MPN1-022.039d.mgd.msft.net> <521703AB.8030702@freescale.com> <1377272410.20722.46.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <521AA947.6080209@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <521AA947.6080209@freescale.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090104010705040003030102" Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , "cbouatmailru@gmail.com" , "cjb@laptop.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Xie Xiaobo-R63061 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --------------090104010705040003030102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/26/2013 09:03 AM, Zhang Haijun wrote: > On 08/23/2013 11:40 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 14:39 +0800, Zhang Haijun wrote: >>> Hi, Anton and all >>> >>> Is there any advice on these two patches ? >>> >>> [PATCH 2/4 V2] mmc: esdhc: workaround for dma err in the last system >>> transaction >>> [PATCH 3/4 V3] mmc: esdhc: Correct host version of T4240-R1.0-R2.0. >>> >>> >>> [PATCH 1/4 V4] powerpc/85xx: Add support for 85xx cpu type detection >>> This patch is Act-by Scott. >>> Patch 4/4 is split to four patches and Act-by Anton. >>> >>> >>> Thanks all. >>> >>> >>> >> [snip] >>>>> + if (!(((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_T4240) && (SVR_REV(svr) == 0x10)) >>>>> || >>>>> + ((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_B4860) && (SVR_REV(svr) == 0x10)) >>>>> || >>>>> + ((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P1010) && (SVR_REV(svr) == 0x10)) >>>>> || >>>>> + ((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P3041) && (SVR_REV(svr) <= 0x20)) >>>>> || >>>>> + ((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P2041) && (SVR_REV(svr) <= 0x20)) >>>>> || >>>>> + ((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P5040) && SVR_REV(svr) == 0x20))) >>>>> + return; >> You need to include variants here. If P5040 is affected, then P5021 is >> affected. If P2041 is affected, then P2040 is affected, etc. >> >> -Scott >> >> > Hi, Scott > > This workaround is for CR:ENGR00229586: A-005055, Configs Affected > onlylist these soc and its version. > I was also wonder why only these boards? > > But Ican't add soc like P5021 as I think it should be. Maybe there are > some difference between them. > > -- > Thanks & Regards > > Haijun Hi, Scott I found there are update about this errata. I'll update thispatch. Thanks. -- Thanks & Regards Haijun --------------090104010705040003030102 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 08/26/2013 09:03 AM, Zhang Haijun wrote:
On 08/23/2013 11:40 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 14:39 +0800, Zhang Haijun wrote:

Hi, Anton and all

Is there any advice on these two patches ?

[PATCH 2/4 V2] mmc: esdhc: workaround for dma err in the last system 
transaction
[PATCH 3/4 V3] mmc: esdhc: Correct host version of T4240-R1.0-R2.0.


[PATCH 1/4 V4] powerpc/85xx: Add support for 85xx cpu type detection
This patch is Act-by Scott.
Patch 4/4 is split to four patches and Act-by Anton.


Thanks all.




[snip]

+	if (!(((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_T4240) && (SVR_REV(svr) == 0x10))
||
+		((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_B4860) && (SVR_REV(svr) == 0x10))
||
+		((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P1010) && (SVR_REV(svr) == 0x10))
||
+		((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P3041) && (SVR_REV(svr) <= 0x20))
||
+		((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P2041) && (SVR_REV(svr) <= 0x20))
||
+		((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_P5040) && SVR_REV(svr) == 0x20)))
+		return;

You need to include variants here.  If P5040 is affected, then P5021 is
affected.  If P2041 is affected, then P2040 is affected, etc.

-Scott
Hi, Scott

This workaround is for CR:ENGR00229586: A-005055, Configs Affected only list these soc and its version.
I was also wonder why only these boards?

But I can't add soc like P5021 as I think it should be. Maybe there are some difference between them.

-- 
Thanks & Regards

Haijun
Hi, Scott

I found there are update about this errata.

I'll update this patch.

Thanks.

-- 
Thanks & Regards

Haijun
--------------090104010705040003030102--