[RESEND PATCH 1/2] imx: mx6ull: fix REFTOP_VBGADJ setting

2022-02-05 Thread sbabic
> The previous code wrote the contents of the fuse as is in the > REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0], but this was wrong if you consider the contents of > the table in the code comment. This table is also different from the > table in the commit description. But then, which of the two is correct? > If it is

[RESEND PATCH 1/2] imx: mx6ull: fix REFTOP_VBGADJ setting

2022-01-31 Thread Dario Binacchi
The previous code wrote the contents of the fuse as is in the REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0], but this was wrong if you consider the contents of the table in the code comment. This table is also different from the table in the commit description. But then, which of the two is correct? If it is assumed that an

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] imx: mx6ull: fix REFTOP_VBGADJ setting

2022-01-31 Thread Fabio Estevam
Hi Peng and Jacky, On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 4:50 AM Dario Binacchi wrote: > > The previous code wrote the contents of the fuse as is in the > REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0], but this was wrong if you consider the contents of > the table in the code comment. This table is also different from the > table in

[PATCH 1/2] imx: mx6ull: fix REFTOP_VBGADJ setting

2022-01-13 Thread Dario Binacchi
The previous code wrote the contents of the fuse as is in the REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0], but this was wrong if you consider the contents of the table in the code comment. This table is also different from the table in the commit description. But then, which of the two is correct? If it is assumed that an