On Sunday 12 February 2017 09:17 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:55:27AM +0200, Uri Mashiach wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 02/09/2017 10:29 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:00:26AM +0200, Uri Mashiach wrote: >>> >>>> The following XHCI registers base address are set to OMAP5 values: >>>> OMAP_XHCI_BASE, OMAP_OCP1_SCP_BASE, OMAP_OTG_WRAPPER_BASE >>>> >>>> Captured crash for "usb start" command: >>>> ----------------------------------cut---------------------------------- >>>> => usb start >>>> starting USB... >>>> USB0: data abort >>>> pc : [<fff63d22>] lr : [<fff63b63>] >>>> reloc pc : [<8081cd22>] lr : [<8081cb63>] >>>> sp : fdf42d08 ip : fff9e040 fp : fdf42d50 >>>> r10: fff8a998 r9 : fdf42ef0 r8 : 00000000 >>>> r7 : fdf42d28 r6 : fdf42d2c r5 : fffa5c00 r4 : 00000000 >>>> r3 : 4a020000 r2 : 00000000 r1 : fdf42e78 r0 : fffa5c00 >>>> Flags: nzCv IRQs off FIQs off Mode SVC_32 >>>> Resetting CPU ... >>>> >>>> resetting ... >>>> ----------------------------------cut---------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Fix by adding the CL-SOM-AM57x target to the XHCI registers base address >>>> ifdef'ery. >>>> A better fix should be based on a SOC family defines (currently >>>> missing). >>> >>> Can you please go add the Kconfig symbols that would be the better >>> solution please? Thanks! >> >> The SOC family symbol CONFIG_AM57XX was removed by the commit >> 3891a54: "ARM: DRA7x/AM57xx: Get rid of CONFIG_AM57XX". >> Maybe the symbol should be reintroduced just for the XHCI registers >> section? > > Yes, sounds like we do have a case where DRA7xx is not the same as > AM57xx then? >
No that's not right. It is just DRA74x_EVM and AM57XX evm is using different instances of XHCI. Ideally this base address should be coming from DT. I don't think it is a good idea to introduce CONFIG_AM57XX. Thanks and regards, Lokesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
