On 04-Dec-17 10:31 PM, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Vignesh R vigneshr@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.