On 11/29/2014 11:18 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Tobias Jakobi wrote:
EXYNOS4_MCT_L_MASK is defined as 0xff00, so applying this bitmask
produces a number outside the range 0x00 to 0xff, which always results
in execution of the default switch statement.
Obviously this is wrong and git history show
Tobias Jakobi wrote:
>
> EXYNOS4_MCT_L_MASK is defined as 0xff00, so applying this bitmask
> produces a number outside the range 0x00 to 0xff, which always results
> in execution of the default switch statement.
>
> Obviously this is wrong and git history shows that the bitmask inversion
> wa
Tobias Jakobi wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> just a short note that I still don't see this patch applied anywhere.
> Anything else I need to do here?
>
Sorry about that and it would be handled by Daniel.
Let me ping with adding him on your original patch.
Thanks for your gentle reminder.
- Kukjin
--
Hello,
just a short note that I still don't see this patch applied anywhere.
Anything else I need to do here?
With best wishes,
Tobias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at htt
Hi Tobias,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Tobias Jakobi
wrote:
> Hello Doug,
>
> I didn't encounter any obvious problems with the MCT. I was made aware of
> the issue by kinsamanka on the Hardkernel forums, but didn't tell me through
> which means he/she found it.
>
Looks like this came up bac
Hello Doug,
I didn't encounter any obvious problems with the MCT. I was made aware
of the issue by kinsamanka on the Hardkernel forums, but didn't tell me
through which means he/she found it.
Concerning testing, I have this running since some weeks on my ODROID-X2
(Exynos4412), again, haven'
Tobias,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Tobias Jakobi
wrote:
> EXYNOS4_MCT_L_MASK is defined as 0xff00, so applying this bitmask
> produces a number outside the range 0x00 to 0xff, which always results
> in execution of the default switch statement.
>
> Obviously this is wrong and git histor
EXYNOS4_MCT_L_MASK is defined as 0xff00, so applying this bitmask
produces a number outside the range 0x00 to 0xff, which always results
in execution of the default switch statement.
Obviously this is wrong and git history shows that the bitmask inversion
was incorrectly set during a refactori