* Mohammed, Afzal <af...@ti.com> [120614 23:20]: > Hi Tony, > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:12:46, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > > > But I am unable to find reason for failure upon using > > gpmc_ticks_to_ns(1), which seems to me right thing to be used. > > Let me try to invoke tusb6010 functions in beagle board, > > observe timings so that at least I will get an idea > > what is going on here (even though it is guaranteed to crash) > > Checked simulating on beagle board, I am at total loss to > understand why using gpmc_ticks_to_ns(1) has failed for n8x0 > > clk_activation timings with both values as follows, > > [1] With t.clk_activation = gpmc_ticks_to_ns(1); > > GPMC CS4: clk_activation: 1 ticks, 6 ns (was 0 ticks) 6 ns > > [2] With t.clk_activation = 1; > > GPMC CS4: clk_activation: 1 ticks, 6 ns (was 0 ticks) 1 ns > > Last field show in ns the time we are trying to set, > and for both cases, 1 ticks are being programmed in register.
Yes tired it again it is working correctly. I must have messed up something yesterday when manually patching the clk_activation, maybe I put the clk_activation value into async timings instead as I was seeing the tick value set to 0 for the sync mode. So looks OK to me, n800 tusb6010 and onenand behave as earlier, also onenand on n900 seems to get detected as earlier. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
