On 01/30/2014 11:13 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 10:42 +0530, Suresh Gupta wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_FSL_ERRATUM_A006261
>> +static inline bool has_erratum_a006261(void)
>> +{
>> + u32 svr = get_svr();
>> + u32 soc = SVR_SOC_VER(svr);
>> +
>> + switch (soc) {
>> + case SVR_P1010:
>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0) || IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 0);
>> + case SVR_P2041:
>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0) ||
>> + IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 1) || IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 1);
>> + case SVR_P3041:
>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0) ||
>> + IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 1) ||
>> + IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 0) || IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 1);
>> + case SVR_P5020:
>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0) || IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 0);
>> + case SVR_T4240:
>> + case SVR_T4160:
>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0) || IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 0);
>> + case SVR_T1040:
>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0);
>> + case SVR_P5040:
>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0);
>> + }
>
> P2040? P5010? P5021?
>
Please update your patch to support these variants. I understand they don't show
up on the errata document, but they are valid variants if you check SVRs.
York
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
