On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
> wrote:
>
>> Well, yes and no. Not all the bits can be writable according to the
>> documentation if I remember and if the value you
>> put are the value after reset and if I
Hi
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:56 PM Fabio Estevam wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, if you resend with the change discussed I'm fine with it. The reason
> > that
> > I'm trying to make much clean is just because I get random
Hi Michael,
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
wrote:
> Ok, if you resend with the change discussed I'm fine with it. The reason that
> I'm trying to make much clean is just because I get random problem in the past
> just for few bits ;)
Sorry, I am not sure what
Hi Fabio
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:50 PM Fabio Estevam wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
> wrote:
>
> > Well, yes and no. Not all the bits can be writable according to the
> > documentation if I remember and if the value you
> > put are the value after reset
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
wrote:
> Well, yes and no. Not all the bits can be writable according to the
> documentation if I remember and if the value you
> put are the value after reset and if I remember are all the clock on,
> you need to explain better you you
Hi
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:33 PM Fabio Estevam wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
> wrote:
>
> >> >> +static void ccgr_init(void)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct mxc_ccm_reg *ccm = (struct mxc_ccm_reg *)CCM_BASE_ADDR;
> >> >> +
> >> >> +
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
wrote:
>> >> +static void ccgr_init(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct mxc_ccm_reg *ccm = (struct mxc_ccm_reg *)CCM_BASE_ADDR;
>> >> +
>> >> + writel(0x, >CCGR0);
>> >> + writel(0x, >CCGR1);
>>
Hi Fabio
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:01 PM Fabio Estevam wrote:
>
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/board/technexion/pico-imx6ul/spl.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> >
> > space
> >
>
> >> +static
Hi Jagan,
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/board/technexion/pico-imx6ul/spl.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>
> space
>
>> +static void ccgr_init(void)
>> +{
>> + struct mxc_ccm_reg *ccm = (struct mxc_ccm_reg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
> From: Fabio Estevam
>
> There are two versions of imx6ul pico SOMs: one with 256MB and another
> one with 512MB of RAM.
>
> Convert to SPL so that both versions can be supported.
>
> Currently only the 256MB is tested/supported.
>
>
From: Fabio Estevam
There are two versions of imx6ul pico SOMs: one with 256MB and another
one with 512MB of RAM.
Convert to SPL so that both versions can be supported.
Currently only the 256MB is tested/supported.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam
Signed-off-by: Fabio Berton
Signed-off-by:
11 matches
Mail list logo