From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967893Ab3E3IS7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2013 04:18:59 -0400 Received: from eusmtp01.atmel.com ([212.144.249.243]:20759 "EHLO eusmtp01.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967813Ab3E3ISy (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2013 04:18:54 -0400 Message-ID: <51A70B6A.8060306@atmel.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:18:50 +0200 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: Robert Nelson , Andrew Morton , Johan Hovold , Robert Nelson , , "Ludovic Desroches" , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] rtc-at91rm9200: add shadow interrupt mask References: <1364983415-20298-1-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com> <1369298335-24597-1-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com> <20130529133354.dd181c845ee4e96527483345@linux-foundation.org> <51A68DC8.3090703@interlog.com> In-Reply-To: <51A68DC8.3090703@interlog.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.161.30.18] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 30/05/2013 01:22, Douglas Gilbert : > On 13-05-29 04:41 PM, Robert Nelson wrote: >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton >> wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against >>>> v3.10-rc2. >>>> >>>> I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed >>>> affected. If not, then some probing mechanism as the one Doug suggested >>>> could be implemented on top of (a subset of) these patches. What do you >>>> say, Nicolas? >>>> >>>> Note that the first patch (adding a missing OF compile guard) could be >>>> applied straight away. >>> >>> At this stage it is unclear to me how to proceed with patches 2-5. >> >> fyi: >> >> A version of these patches had been applied once before: >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0ef1594c017521ea89278e80fe3f80dafb17abde >> >> >> But due to a few issues it was later reverted: >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e24b0bfa2f0446ffaad2661040be23668133aef8 >> > > Strange life of a patch. Mine was the original, Johan Hovold > objected and had it reverted. Johan then presented his first > patch then v2. They got lost in the weeds. No, they were not lost. No patch is ever lost and this thread is the proof. > My hardware was still broken and this bug caused collateral > damage. My original patch no longer applied to lk 3.10.0-rc1 > so I rewrote it, borrowing some of Johan's ideas and doing a > probe time check for the broken RTC_IMR. That patch was > presented about a week ago: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=136917492531478&w=2 > The top of that post gives some more background. > > That prompted Johan to produce v3 of his patch which is the > subject of this thread. I was hoping that Nicolas Ferre would > comment or ack one of these patches. Still waiting. Sure that all this did not progressed at the speed you expected. I understand that. But even if I did not answered in a timely manner, that does not mean that I didn't considered it and marked it as "things to be done before next merge window"... So, today, too late, I gave my "Acked-by". Sorry for the delay. Let's still monitor the progress of this series upstream. > I have a copy of the original, publicly released manual for > the at91sam9g25 (a member of the at91sam9x5 family) marked > "11032A–ATARM–27-Jul-11". It contains the following: > Errata > 49.3.1 > RTC: Interrupt Mask Register cannot be used > Interrupt Mask Register reading always returns 0. > > Both Rev B and Rev C of that manual drop that particular > erratum. My g25 SoC-based subsystems come from an Atmel > partner and still have the RTC IMR bug. We already talked about this Douglas. Why are you saying this again. So, to summarize: 1/ each and every at91sam9x5 family SoC have and will probably always have this IMR bug (including 9g25 which is part of the family). 2/ you kindly reported the errata disappearing in the documentation. It is an error with document appearance which you probably noted. I have made the necessary actions to correct this. But here again, you have to be patient waiting for the datasheet's next revision. Best regards, -- Nicolas Ferre