On 04-Dec-17 10:31 PM, Frank Mori Hess wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 04-Dec-17 6:41 PM, Frank Mori Hess wrote: >>> Since your commit broke my platform to fix yours, shouldn't it be >>> reverted and TI platforms use your pending patch queue? >>> >> >> Socfpga DT defined ahb base as 0xffa00000 while masked upper bits in the >> code, which was confusing. And seems that my patch did work on some >> socfgpa board looking at the original commit message. > > There is nothing in the original commit message that suggests it > worked on any socfpga board, unless you mean > > "Since AHB address is passed from DT > and read as u32 value, it anyway does not make sense to mask upper bits." > > which is simply wrong. >
There is a "Tested-by:" tag in the commit as well as: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/609955/ >> If the patch is reverted then, applying pending patches alone will not >> help because my patch would be needed anyway to make sure we don't mask >> 31-20 bits on TI platforms. > > No it won't needed, see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/838592/ that > patch series writes plat->trigger_address instead of ahbbase (masked > or not). > Okay, but reverting this patch would mean Jason has to rebase above patch. Instead applying that patch would anyway fix the issue. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot