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
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
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
--
To
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
was
Tobias,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Tobias Jakobi
tjak...@math.uni-bielefeld.de 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
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,
Hi Tobias,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Tobias Jakobi
tjak...@math.uni-bielefeld.de 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.
