Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] coresight: Extend the PIDR mask to cover relevant bits in PIDR2 | From | Suzuki K Poulose <> | Date | Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:53:52 +0100 |
| |
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
| |