linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am654-main: Update otap-del-sel values

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fae18e36-2292-b607-fa4c-fdedb7040216@ti.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 13:00:02 +0530
From:   Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>
To:     Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:     <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am654-main: Update otap-del-sel
 values

Hi Tero,

On 15/05/20 3:44 pm, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 07/05/2020 21:15, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>> According to the latest AM65x Data Manual[1], a different output tap
>> delay value is optimum for a given speed mode. Update these values.
>>
>> [1] http://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/am6526
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>
>> ---
>> v2: Rebased to the latest mainline kernel
>>
>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi | 12 +++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
>> index 11887c72f23a..6cd9701e4ead 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-main.dtsi
>> @@ -244,7 +244,17 @@
>>           interrupts = <GIC_SPI 136 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>           mmc-ddr-1_8v;
>>           mmc-hs200-1_8v;
>> -        ti,otap-del-sel = <0x2>;
>> +        ti,otap-del-sel-legacy = <0x0>;
>> +        ti,otap-del-sel-mmc-hs = <0x0>;
>> +        ti,otap-del-sel-sd-hs = <0x0>;
>> +        ti,otap-del-sel-sdr12 = <0x0>;
>> +        ti,otap-del-sel-sdr25 = <0x0>;
>> +        ti,otap-del-sel-sdr50 = <0x8>;
>> +        ti,otap-del-sel-sdr104 = <0x5>;
> 
> Isn't this wrong? Doc claims the value for sdr104 should be 0x7?
> 

Yes. There seems to be an update to the document since I last updated the value.
Thanks for catching. I will post another version soon.

Thanks,
Faiz