From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:02:12 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] omap3: Variant and revision checks for ARM Cortex-A8 errata workarounds In-Reply-To: <1424794176.2496.9.camel@collins> References: <1424704032.2434.9.camel@collins> <1424719005-18838-1-git-send-email-contact@paulk.fr> <20150223222133.GN25879@bill-the-cat> <1424779359.2496.7.camel@collins> <1424794176.2496.9.camel@collins> Message-ID: <54ED02F4.5070605@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 02/24/2015 10:09 AM, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > Le mardi 24 f?vrier 2015 ? 09:22 -0600, Nishanth Menon a ?crit : >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: >>> Le lundi 23 f?vrier 2015 ? 16:43 -0600, Nishanth Menon a ?crit : >>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 08:16:44PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Not every version and revision of the Cortex-A8 ARM core requires the same >>>>>> errata workarounds. In addition, enabling those requires to have similar >>>>>> workarounds enabled in the kernel or it will cause numerous segmentation faults. >>>>>> >>>>>> This enables those workarounds when they are needed, according to what is done >>>>>> in Linux. >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow-up to the discussion from July 2013: >>>>>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/158377.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski >>>>> >>>>> Nishanth, any comments here, since you've been thinking about errata >>>>> stuff lately? Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would probably go with v7 start code triggering the logic. even >>>> though the secure logic is probably unique.. >>> >>> It does seem like the secure logic is specific to the OMAP, even though >>> the GP part (omap3_gp_romcode_call) seems to be generic. >>> >>> I don't think it would fit well in common v7 code and overall, I don't >>> think I have sufficient knowledge of those issues to take the decision >>> to move that code around. >>> >>> Hence, I'll keep my proposal to what it is now, and let someone else >>> move the code around in the future if they feel the need to. >> >> Do you mind if i took a shot at it? would be great if you could test the same. > > Alright, please go ahead! I'm available to test any patch on my omap > 3630 device. > Alright, the series should now include OMAP3 as well.. Sorry about confusion when list blocked me for too many cc folks etc.. anyways.. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443261/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443264/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443268/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443265/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443263/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443262/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443267/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443266/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/443260/ -- Regards, Nishanth Menon