Hi Mike, Suzuki,
On 2020-05-16 15:34, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Mike, Suzuki
[...]
Please look at the CoreSight components specification 3.0 (ARM IHI
0029E) Section B2.1.2 which describes the Unique Component Identifier
(UCI).
As mentioned above this consists of a combination of bits
Hi Mike, Suzuki
[...]
Please look at the CoreSight components specification 3.0 (ARM IHI
0029E) Section B2.1.2 which describes the Unique Component Identifier
(UCI).
As mentioned above this consists of a combination of bits from
multiple registers, including PIDR4.
Ok got it now, thanks
On 2020-05-13 07:19, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Mike Leach (2020-05-12 14:52:33)
HI Sai,
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 18:46, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 2020-05-12 17:19, Mike Leach wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry for hurrying up and sending the patch -
> >> >>
Hi Mike,
On 2020-05-13 03:22, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
Looking at the AMBA driver there is a comment there that AMBA does not
lose state when clocks are removed. This is consistent with the AMBA
protocol spec which states that AMBA slaves can only be accessed /
read / write on various strobe
Quoting Mike Leach (2020-05-12 14:52:33)
> HI Sai,
>
> On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 18:46, Sai Prakash Ranjan
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > On 2020-05-12 17:19, Mike Leach wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sorry for hurrying up and sending the patch -
> > >> >>
HI Sai,
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 18:46, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 2020-05-12 17:19, Mike Leach wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry for hurrying up and sending the patch -
> >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1239923/.
> >> >> I will send v2 based on further
Hi Mike,
On 2020-05-12 17:19, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Sorry for hurrying up and sending the patch -
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1239923/.
>> I will send v2 based on further feedbacks here or there.
>>
>>>
>>> 1) does this replicator part have a unique ID that differs from
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 05:49, Mike Leach wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 15:41, Sai Prakash Ranjan
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Suzuki,
> >
> > On 2020-05-11 20:00, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > On 05/11/2020 03:16 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > >> Hi Mike,
> > >>
> > >> On 2020-05-11 16:44,
HI,
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 15:41, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> Hi Suzuki,
>
> On 2020-05-11 20:00, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 05/11/2020 03:16 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> On 2020-05-11 16:44, Mike Leach wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
I have reviewed the replicator driver,
Hi Suzuki,
On 2020-05-11 20:00, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 05/11/2020 03:16 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 2020-05-11 16:44, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
I checked with the debug team and there is a limitation with
the replicator(swao_replicator) in the AOSS group where it
loses the
On 2020-05-11 19:46, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 2020-05-11 16:44, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
I checked with the debug team and there is a limitation with
the replicator(swao_replicator) in the AOSS group where it
loses the idfilter register context when the clock is disabled.
This is
On 05/11/2020 03:16 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 2020-05-11 16:44, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
I checked with the debug team and there is a limitation with
the replicator(swao_replicator) in the AOSS group where it
loses the idfilter register context when the clock is disabled.
This
Hi Mike,
On 2020-05-11 16:44, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
I checked with the debug team and there is a limitation with
the replicator(swao_replicator) in the AOSS group where it
loses the idfilter register context when the clock is disabled.
This is not just in SC7180 SoC but also reported on
HI,
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:53, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> Hi Suzuki, Mike,
>
> On 2020-05-06 13:05, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> [...]
>
>
> >>> OK - sorry I read your statement saying that replicator1 was 0 after
> >>> the reset in probe(), rather than look at the logs.
> >>>
> >>>
Hi Suzuki, Mike,
On 2020-05-06 13:05, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
[...]
OK - sorry I read your statement saying that replicator1 was 0 after
the reset in probe(), rather than look at the logs.
From the logs it is working at the time probe() occurs, but by the
time we come to enable the
Hi Suzuki, Mike,
On 2020-04-29 22:41, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 2020-04-29 22:28, Mike Leach wrote:
Hi,
[...]
>> > You need to find what is resetting the IDFILTERs to 0 for replicator1.
>> >
>>
>> That is right.
>>
>
> By default all replicators have the IDFILTER registers
Hi Mike,
On 2020-04-29 22:28, Mike Leach wrote:
Hi,
[...]
>> > You need to find what is resetting the IDFILTERs to 0 for replicator1.
>> >
>>
>> That is right.
>>
>
> By default all replicators have the IDFILTER registers set to 0 out of
> hardware reset. This ensures that programmable
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 15:48, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 2020-04-29 19:57, Mike Leach wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> Looking more into replicator1(swao_replicator) values as 0x0 even
> >> >> after replicator_reset()
> >> >> in replicator probe, I added
Hi Mike,
On 2020-04-29 19:57, Mike Leach wrote:
Hi,
[...]
>> Looking more into replicator1(swao_replicator) values as 0x0 even
>> after replicator_reset()
>> in replicator probe, I added dynamic_replicator_reset in
>> dynamic_replicator_enable()
>> and am not seeing any hardlockup. Also I
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 14:59, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-29 19:19, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 04/29/2020 12:47 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> >> On 2020-04-28 17:53, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> >>> On 2020-04-27 19:23, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 04/27/2020 10:45 AM,
On 2020-04-29 19:19, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 04/29/2020 12:47 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 2020-04-28 17:53, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 2020-04-27 19:23, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 04/27/2020 10:45 AM, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
This is not sufficient. You must prevent another
On 04/29/2020 12:47 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 2020-04-28 17:53, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 2020-04-27 19:23, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 04/27/2020 10:45 AM, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
This is not sufficient. You must prevent another session trying to
enable the other port of the
On 2020-04-28 17:53, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 2020-04-27 19:23, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 04/27/2020 10:45 AM, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
This is not sufficient. You must prevent another session trying to
enable the other port of the replicator as this could silently fail
the "on-going"
On 2020-04-27 19:23, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 04/27/2020 10:45 AM, Mike Leach wrote:
[...]
This is not sufficient. You must prevent another session trying to
enable the other port of the replicator as this could silently fail
the "on-going" session. Not ideal. Fail the attempt to enable a
24 matches
Mail list logo
