This adds a patch to target/linux/lantiq/patches-3.14 fixing a bug clock code on ar9. The current version returns the wrong value for the fpi clock frequency in some cases.
See discussion for further details: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-January/030688.html I'm not sure about the patch naming and numbering convention. Do please let me know it this is not OK. Many thanks, Ben Mulvihill Signed-off-by: Ben Mulvihill <ben.mulvih...@gmail.com> --- diff -uprN a/target/linux/lantiq/patches-3.14/0038-MIPS-lantiq-fpi-on-ar9.patch b/target/linux/lantiq/patches-3.14/0038-MIPS-lantiq-fpi-on-ar9.patch --- a/target/linux/lantiq/patches-3.14/0038-MIPS-lantiq-fpi-on-ar9.patch 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 +++ b/target/linux/lantiq/patches-3.14/0038-MIPS-lantiq-fpi-on-ar9.patch 2015-01-22 12:57:11.112761851 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +Return correct value for fpi clock on ar9. + +Signed-off-by: Ben Mulvihill <ben.mulvih...@gmail.com> +--- + arch/mips/lantiq/xway/clk.c | 5 +++-- + 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) + +--- a/arch/mips/lantiq/xway/clk.c 2015-01-21 10:15:44.000000000 +0100 ++++ b/arch/mips/lantiq/xway/clk.c 2015-01-21 10:17:29.000000000 +0100 +@@ -104,8 +104,9 @@ unsigned long ltq_ar9_fpi_hz(void) + unsigned long sys = ltq_ar9_sys_hz(); + + if (ltq_cgu_r32(CGU_SYS) & BIT(0)) +- return sys; +- return sys >> 1; ++ return sys / 3; ++ else ++ return sys / 2; + } + + unsigned long ltq_ar9_cpu_hz(void) _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
