On 31/03/2008, Felipe Balbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:58:11AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>  > * Andrzej Zaborowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080329 18:48]:
>  > > From: Andrzej Zaborowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  > >
>  > > [Sorry, the previous patch was a copy/paste mistake, this one should be
>  > > better]
>  > >
>  > > I have no access to the docs for this chip but I'm pretty sure the 
> current
>  > > address of the two DIDR1 registers is wrong because it's outside the
>  > > TUSB-specific register space.  The modified address in turn has a good
>  > > chance to be correct.
>  > >
>  > > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Zaborowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  > > ---
>  > >  drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h |    4 ++--
>  > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  > >
>  > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h b/drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h
>  > > index bb25c3b..f2036ef 100644
>  > > --- a/drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h
>  > > +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.h
>  > > @@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ extern void tusb_allow_idle(struct musb *musb, u32 
> wakeup_enables);
>  > >  #define TUSB_PROD_TEST_RESET_VAL           0xa596
>  > >  #define TUSB_EP_FIFO(ep)                   (TUSB_FIFO_BASE + (ep) * 
> 0x20)
>  > >
>  > > -#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO                              0x1f8
>  > > -#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI                              0x1fc
>  > > +#define TUSB_DIDR1_LO                              (TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 
> 0x1f8)
>  > > +#define TUSB_DIDR1_HI                              (TUSB_SYS_REG_BASE + 
> 0x1fc)
>  > >  #define            TUSB_DIDR1_HI_CHIP_REV(v)               (((v) >> 17) 
> & 0xf)
>  > >  #define                    TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_20            0
>  > >  #define                    TUSB_DIDR1_HI_REV_30            1
>  >
>  > This looks like a valid fix. Hmm, I guess we've had some unnecessary
>  > software workarounds for tusb3.1 chips happening :)
>
>
> Ugh, I'm out for today and tomorrow but I'll test on wednesday and make
>  sure it works.

Thanks.

I only checked with usb-net, the only difference was that I got
"dieid2" instead of "dieid5" in the dmesg (2 seems correct for
rev3.1). The machine is some n810 proto (says N00).

Cheers
-- 
Please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary. Spread
environmental awareness.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to