[PATCH] ENGR00121057 switch low power mode only support in mc13892 2.0a

Stefan Bader stefan.bader at canonical.com
Wed Aug 11 15:44:57 UTC 2010


On 08/11/2010 04:17 PM, Vaidyanathan Ranjani-RA5478 wrote:
> Hi all,
>  I have attached the email that I sent to Bryan Wu on 08/09/2010. I did
> verify Bryan's kernel that included the patch mentioned below on 2
> BBG2.5 boards (that have Atlas 2.0 parts). I followed the steps
> mentioned in the attached email to upgrade the kernel and the 2 BBG2.5
> boards booted fine after the kernel upgrade. 
> 
> Amit,
>   I am sorry, apart from replacing the MX51 and/or the atlas part, I
> don't believe there is a way to "unbrick" the broken boards. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ranjani
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Wu [mailto:bryan.wu at canonical.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:34 AM
> To: Stefan Bader; Amit Kucheria; Vaidyanathan Ranjani-RA5478
> Cc: kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ENGR00121057 switch low power mode only support in
> mc13892 2.0a
> 
> On 08/11/2010 08:37 PM, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 08/11/2010 01:56 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>> On 10 Aug 11, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2010 12:41 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>>>>> On 08/10/2010 11:36 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/10/2010 12:07 AM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Shen Yong<b00984 at freescale.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> switch low power mode will cause problems on previous version of 
>>>>>>> mc13892, which may break mc13892 chip.
>>>>>>> This is a fix for ENGR00120510.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/615722
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shen Yong<b00984 at freescale.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu<bryan.wu at canonical.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-mx51/mx51_babbage_pmic_mc13892.c |   30
> +++++++++++++++--------
>>>>>>>    1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mx51/mx51_babbage_pmic_mc13892.c 
>>>>>>> b/arch/arm/mach-mx51/mx51_babbage_pmic_mc13892.c
>>>>>>> index e8a03cf..13869d0 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-mx51/mx51_babbage_pmic_mc13892.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx51/mx51_babbage_pmic_mc13892.c
>>>>>>> @@ -346,17 +346,25 @@ static int mc13892_regulator_init(struct
> mc13892 *mc13892)
>>>>>>>    	pmic_write_reg(REG_MODE_1, value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    	/* enable switch audo mode */
>>>>>>> -	pmic_read_reg(REG_SW_4,&value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> -	register_mask = (SWMODE_MASK<<   SW1MODE_LSB) |
> (SWMODE_MASK<<   SW2MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> -	value&= ~register_mask;
>>>>>>> -	value |= (SWMODE_AUTO<<   SW1MODE_LSB) | (SWMODE_AUTO<<
> SW2MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> -	pmic_write_reg(REG_SW_4, value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> -	pmic_read_reg(REG_SW_5,&value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> -	register_mask = (SWMODE_MASK<<   SW3MODE_LSB) |
> (SWMODE_MASK<<   SW4MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> -	value&= ~register_mask;
>>>>>>> -	value |= (SWMODE_AUTO<<   SW3MODE_LSB) | (SWMODE_AUTO<<
> SW4MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> -	pmic_write_reg(REG_SW_5, value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> +	pmic_read_reg(REG_IDENTIFICATION,&value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> +	/* only for mc13892 2.0A */
>>>>>>> +	if ((value&   0x0000FFFF) == 0x45d0) {
>>>>>>> +		pmic_read_reg(REG_SW_4,&value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> +		register_mask = (SWMODE_MASK<<   SW1MODE_LSB) |
>>>>>>> +		       (SWMODE_MASK<<   SW2MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> +		value&= ~register_mask;
>>>>>>> +		value |= (SWMODE_AUTO<<   SW1MODE_LSB) |
>>>>>>> +			(SWMODE_AUTO<<   SW2MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> +		pmic_write_reg(REG_SW_4, value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +		pmic_read_reg(REG_SW_5,&value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> +		register_mask = (SWMODE_MASK<<   SW3MODE_LSB) |
>>>>>>> +			(SWMODE_MASK<<   SW4MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> +		value&= ~register_mask;
>>>>>>> +		value |= (SWMODE_AUTO<<   SW3MODE_LSB) |
>>>>>>> +			(SWMODE_AUTO<<   SW4MODE_LSB);
>>>>>>> +		pmic_write_reg(REG_SW_5, value, 0xffffff);
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    	/* Enable coin cell charger */
>>>>>>>    	value = BITFVAL(CIONCHEN, 1) | BITFVAL(VCOIN,
> VCOIN_3_0V);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bryan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have positive test results from testing this patch? We want
> 
>>>>>> to make sure this patch fixes the issue that we have been seeing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brad,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it can be confirmed by Ranjani from Freescale. I copied him 
>>>>> in this email thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> OK, so this sounds like we can take it. ACK
>>>
>>> I think Bryan meant we should wait for confirmation from Ranjani. 
>>> _She_ will confirm if this fix doesn't brick BB2.5.
>>>
>>> BTW, is there any chance of unbricking bricked BB2.5 (like mine)?
>>>
>>> /Amit
>>>
>>
>> Ok, then I hold of with that until this has been confirmed. I have an 
>> updated tree ready to push and a source package ready for upload here.
>>
> 
> Amit and Stefan,
> 
> Actually, I sent out this patch after I got the confirmation from
> Ranjani via email.
> 
> Ranjani,
> 
> Could you please confirm it in public here? Sorry for treating you as a
> boy/man, -;)
> 
> Thanks,
> -Bryan
> 

Applied, pushed and uploaded (build will be blocked until point release is done).

Thanks all.

Stefan




More information about the kernel-team mailing list