Hi Jon,
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 20:32:34, Hunter, Jon wrote:
And we have been able to create such a function. Below is an implementation
that has been made for handling asynchronous timings. It has been tested for
OneNAND SMSC on OMAP3EVM (rev G C) with [1-4]. OneNAND was tested using
Hi Afzal,
Sorry for the delay, I have been out of the office.
On 08/06/2012 08:38 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Tony, Jon,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:17:25, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120710 10:20]:
The DT node should simply have the information required by the
Hi Tony, Jon,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:17:25, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120710 10:20]:
The DT node should simply have the information required by the retime
function or gpmc timings themselves if available. In the case of OneNAND
These can be stored in the DT
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 18:14:30, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 18:02:07, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
index c8a9487..bbae674 100644
Hi Tony, Jon,
Thanks for your explanations, ideas suggestions.
Let me try to come up with a solution based on these.
Regards
Afzal
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:17:25, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120710 10:20]:
Hi Afzal,
On 07/10/2012 08:47 AM, Mohammed, Afzal
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120710 10:20]:
Hi Afzal,
On 07/10/2012 08:47 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 18:47:34, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120710 03:09]:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:15:38, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed,
Hi Tony,
Could not respond you earlier as was sick
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 17:35:33, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 07:56]:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 16:25:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
Presently bigger issue that I am facing w.r.t driver conversion is the
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120709 23:24]:
Hi Tony,
Could not respond you earlier as was sick
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 17:35:33, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 07:56]:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 16:25:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
Presently bigger issue
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:15:38, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120709 23:24]:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 17:35:33, Tony Lindgren wrote:
format. But the peripheral specific retime function still needs to be
also registered for peripherals that need it.
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120710 03:09]:
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:15:38, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120709 23:24]:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 17:35:33, Tony Lindgren wrote:
format. But the peripheral specific retime function still needs to be
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 18:47:34, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120710 03:09]:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:15:38, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120709 23:24]:
For the peripherals requiring retime, we cannot (as otherwise whatever
Hi Afzal,
On 07/10/2012 08:47 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 18:47:34, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120710 03:09]:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:15:38, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120709 23:24]:
For the
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 07:56]:
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 16:25:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 03:29]:
I have a doubt whether we are talking about the same thing, presently
our main issue is in eliminating the necessity of
Hi Tony,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 13:21:59, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120704 00:05]:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 13:47:47, Tony Lindgren wrote:
Yes how about the gpmc using driver code registers itself with the gpmc
code
and also registers it's retime function
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 03:29]:
I have a doubt whether we are talking about the same thing, presently
our main issue is in eliminating the necessity of peripheral specific
functions like gpmc_onenand_init, tusb_setup_interface (which calls
tusb6010_platform_retime), etc.,
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 16:25:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 03:29]:
Initially I thought you were suggesting that all peripheral drivers
connected to gpmc should register their retime function (where
Yes that's what I was suggesting.
To
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 05:03]:
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 16:25:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 03:29]:
Initially I thought you were suggesting that all peripheral drivers
connected to gpmc should register their retime function
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 16:25:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120705 03:29]:
I have a doubt whether we are talking about the same thing, presently
our main issue is in eliminating the necessity of peripheral specific
functions like gpmc_onenand_init,
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 13:47:47, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120702 10:30]:
2. Provide some sort of retime callback that the gpmc driver can call
at probe time to calculate the timings.
Yes how about the gpmc using driver code registers itself with the
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120704 00:05]:
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 13:47:47, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120702 10:30]:
2. Provide some sort of retime callback that the gpmc driver can call
at probe time to calculate the timings.
Yes how
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120702 10:30]:
On 07/02/2012 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
In general, I doubt that we can come up with better calculations. The
existing
code pretty well already follows the device spec timings. And using cycle
values
for some registers is the
On 07/02/2012 11:35 PM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Jon,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 22:59:03, Hunter, Jon wrote:
On 07/02/2012 04:43 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Not sure whether you are fine with fixing up this patch with added diff
Assuming inferences so far is not wrong, right now this
On 07/03/2012 03:17 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120702 10:30]:
On 07/02/2012 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
In general, I doubt that we can come up with better calculations. The
existing
code pretty well already follows the device spec timings. And using cycle
Hi Jon, Tony,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 20:40:03, Hunter, Jon wrote:
So we have 2 options here ...
1. Use the HWMOD_INIT_NO_RESET for now and your updated version of this
patch
2. See if there is a gpio available to control the OneNAND reset on the
n900.
Do you agree? Any other options?
On 07/02/2012 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120628 09:48]:
[2.792510] OneNAND driver initializing
[2.797576] omap2-onenand omap2-onenand: initializing on CS2, phys base
0x2000, virtual base c88c, freq 0 MHz
[2.808929] OneNAND
On 07/02/2012 04:43 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Tony,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:06:51, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120628 09:48]:
The above change seems to imply that Tony's n900 is dependent on the
bootloader settings
and not those being set by the kernel.
Hi Jon,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 22:59:03, Hunter, Jon wrote:
On 07/02/2012 04:43 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Not sure whether you are fine with fixing up this patch with added diff
Assuming inferences so far is not wrong, right now this patch with the
added diff
would be perfectly
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120628 12:05]:
Tony, have you tried using any of the mtd kernel tests to verify OneNAND
read/write is working on your n900? For example ...
# insmod mtd_pagetest.ko dev=mtd-part-num
_NOTE_ that above test erases the OneNAND! ;-)
Ehh not thanks.
Tony
--
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120628 09:48]:
[2.792510] OneNAND driver initializing
[2.797576] omap2-onenand omap2-onenand: initializing on CS2, phys base
0x2000, virtual base c88c, freq 0 MHz
[2.808929] OneNAND Manufacturer: Samsung (0xec)
[2.808990] Muxed
Hi Tony,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:06:51, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com [120628 09:48]:
The above change seems to imply that Tony's n900 is dependent on the
bootloader settings
and not those being set by the kernel. Ideally, we should not need to set
the async
Hi Jon,
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 19:45:37, Hunter, Jon wrote:
On 06/29/2012 01:15 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
I have a different opinion, even with the existing code, with the default
timings for onenand, Numonyx is working in async mode, reason being that
frequency is being obtained with
Hi Tony, Jon,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 22:13:37, Hunter, Jon wrote:
On 06/28/2012 07:32 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 20:28:45, Tony Lindgren wrote:
The last patch in this series causes onenand not to show
up on my n900. I
Hi Afzal,
On 06/29/2012 01:15 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Tony, Jon,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 22:13:37, Hunter, Jon wrote:
On 06/28/2012 07:32 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 20:28:45, Tony Lindgren wrote:
The last patch
Hi Tony,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 20:28:45, Tony Lindgren wrote:
The last patch in this series causes onenand not to show
up on my n900. I believe the problem has been there earlier
too, but I just did not notice it.
Sorry for the delayed response, could reach workplace a short
while ago only
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
Hi Tony,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 20:28:45, Tony Lindgren wrote:
The last patch in this series causes onenand not to show
up on my n900. I believe the problem has been there earlier
too, but I just did not notice it.
Sorry for the
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 18:02:07, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
Yes that seems to do the trick, thanks! I can fold that into the
breaking patch when applying.
Relieved, thanks
Regards
Afzal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi Tony,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 18:02:07, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
index c8a9487..bbae674 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
+++
Hi Tony, Afzal,
On 06/28/2012 07:32 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
Hi Tony,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 20:28:45, Tony Lindgren wrote:
The last patch in this series causes onenand not to show
up on my n900. I believe the problem has been there earlier
Hi Tony, Afzal,
On 06/28/2012 11:43 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
Hi Tony, Afzal,
On 06/28/2012 07:32 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Mohammed, Afzal af...@ti.com [120628 02:36]:
Hi Tony,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 20:28:45, Tony Lindgren wrote:
The last patch in this series causes onenand not to show
* Afzal Mohammed af...@ti.com [120626 23:53]:
Reorganize gpmc-onenand initialization so that changes
required for gpmc driver migration can be made smooth.
Ensuring sync read/write are disabled in onenand cannot
be expected to work properly unless GPMC is setup, this
has been removed.
40 matches
Mail list logo
