>From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] >On 08/26/2016 12:57 PM, Sriram Dash wrote: >>> From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] On 08/26/2016 12:31 PM, >>> Sriram Dash wrote: >>>>> From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] On 08/25/2016 08:47 AM, >>>>> Sriram Dash wrote: >>>>>>> From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] On 08/24/2016 12:39 PM, >>>>>>> Sriram Dash wrote: >>>>>>>> Currently the controller by default enables the Receive Detect >>>>>>>> feature in P3 mode in USB 3.0 PHY. However, USB 3.0 PHY does not >>>>>>>> reliably support receive detection in P3 mode. >>>>>>>> Enabling the USB3 controller to configure USB in P2 mode >>>>>>>> whenever the Receive Detect feature is required. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sriram Dash <sriram.d...@nxp.com> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajesh Bhagat <rajesh.bha...@nxp.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> Changes in v2: >>>>>>>> - Do Soc ver checking for applying erratum >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-dwc3.c | 5 +++++ >>>>>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-fsl.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>>>>>> include/fsl_usb.h | 1 + >>>>>>>> include/linux/usb/dwc3.h | 2 ++ >>>>>>>> 5 files changed, 42 insertions(+) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c >>>>>>>> b/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c index 183bf2b..f2bffba 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/common/fsl-errata.c >>>>>>>> @@ -190,4 +190,30 @@ bool has_erratum_a008751(void) >>>>>>>> return false; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +bool has_erratum_a010151(void) >>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>> + u32 svr = get_svr(); >>>>>>>> + u32 soc = SVR_SOC_VER(svr); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + switch (soc) { >>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 >>>>>>>> + case SVR_LS2080A: >>>>>>>> + case SVR_LS2085A: >>>>>>>> + case SVR_LS1046A: >>>>>>>> + case SVR_LS1012A: >>>>>>>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0); >>>>>>>> + case SVR_LS1043A: >>>>>>>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 0) || IS_SVR_REV(svr, 1, 1); >#endif >>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LS102XA >>>>>>>> + case SOC_VER_LS1020: >>>>>>>> + case SOC_VER_LS1021: >>>>>>>> + case SOC_VER_LS1022: >>>>>>>> + case SOC_VER_SLS1020: >>>>>>>> + return IS_SVR_REV(svr, 2, 0); #endif >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the ifdef really needed ? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. The SVR (SVR_LS2080A, SOC_VER_LS1020) are defined in >>>>>> different ARCH specific files. So, we have used the ifdefs. >>>>> >>>>> Or you can just include all of the headers and then you don't need the >>>>> ifdef, no >? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The headers for the respective ARCHs are included in fsl_errata.h >>>> file. But, there are some macros/structs/variables which are common >>>> across the ARCHs, for example: DCFG_DCSR_PORCR1, >>>> RCW_SB_EN_REG_INDEX, sys_info, etc. So, they are also kept inside the >>>> ifdefs. >>> >>> I don't understand your argument. What happens if you remove the ifdefs? >>> >> >> The fsl_errata.h file includes the headers asm/processor.h(for PPC), >> asm/arch-ls102xa/immap_ls102xa.h( for LS1), asm/arch/soc.h(for Layerscape). >> As some macros/structs are common across the ARCH, if we remove the >> ifdefs, we may > >may or will ? >
They will cause compilation issues. >> experience compilation error on redefinition of the macros and structs. > >And these are not easy to fix ? > There will be many ARCH specific modifications required for carrying out the changes involving a lot of affected Socs. We will take it up in the near future. >> So, the ifdefs are necessary. >> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Marek Vasut > > >-- >Best regards, >Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
