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
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
