Hi Pantelis,
Indeed this is bogus. What is the reset value of the fifoth register?
> Below is a description for the register in question with default
values specified.
--
FIFO Threshold Watermark Register
--
x
Hi, Alexey.
On 11/27/2013 04:45 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 09:21 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Alexey,
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>>
>
>> ATM if no host->fifoth_val value is provided the code will calculate one and
>>
Hi Alexey,
On Nov 27, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 09:21 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Alexey,
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>>
>
>> ATM if no host->fifoth_val value is provided the code will calculate one
Hi Alexey,
On Nov 27, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Jaehoon,
>
> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 14:33 +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> Hi, Alexey,
>>
>> I think good that use the initial fifoth value at register.
>> Then we need not to change the value.
>> But according to my experiment, so
Hi, Alexey,
I think good that use the initial fifoth value at register.
Then we need not to change the value.
But according to my experiment, some SoC needs to change the fifoth value.
On 11/27/2013 12:08 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Removed code works properly only once after power-up because on
Removed code works properly only once after power-up because on every
"first" invocation of "dwmci_init" existing value of "fifo_size" is used
for calculation of itself. More over other bits in the same register
(namely TX watermark and burst size) get corrupted (lost forever till
the next power-to
6 matches
Mail list logo
