lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 03/12] coresight: Extend the PIDR mask to cover relevant bits in PIDR2
From
Date
On 28/06/17 18:35, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On 26 June 2017 at 09:22, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote:
>> As per coresight standards, PIDR2 register has the following format :
>>
>> [2-0] - JEP106_bits6to4
>> [3] - JEDEC, designer ID is specified by JEDEC.
>>
>> However some of the drivers only use mask of 0x3 for the PIDR2 leaving
>> bits [3-2] unchecked, which could potentially match the component for
>> a different device altogether. This patch fixes the mask and the
>> corresponding id bits for the existing devices.
>>
>> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> ---
>> I have not touched the TPIU ids for Ux500 (see commit: 4339b699),
>> as I don't have a platform to fix/correct the ids.
>> ---
>> .../coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm3x.c | 24 +++++++++++-----------
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c | 8 ++++----
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c | 4 ++--
>> 7 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c
>> index 1675031..57babd8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c
>> @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops replicator_dev_pm_ops = {
>>
>> static struct amba_id replicator_ids[] = {
>> {
>> - .id = 0x0003b909,
>> - .mask = 0x0003ffff,
>> + .id = 0x000bb909,
>> + .mask = 0x000bffff,
>
> Shouldn't this be 0x000fffff rather than 0x000bffff?

Yes, you're right. Thanks for spotting the typo. Will fix it.

Suzuki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-28 19:54    [W:0.088 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site