| Message ID | 20220113215704.121003-1-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Stefano Babic |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] imx: mx6ull: fix REFTOP_VBGADJ setting | expand |
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c index aacfc854a2f8..099cb5b12d77 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c @@ -366,11 +366,13 @@ static void init_bandgap(void) * 111 - set REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0] to 3b'111, */ if (is_mx6ull()) { + static const u32 map[] = {6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0, 7}; + val = readl(&fuse->mem0); val >>= OCOTP_MEM0_REFTOP_TRIM_SHIFT; val &= 0x7; - writel(val << BM_ANADIG_ANA_MISC0_REFTOP_VBGADJ_SHIFT, + writel(map[val] << BM_ANADIG_ANA_MISC0_REFTOP_VBGADJ_SHIFT, &anatop->ana_misc0_set); } }
The previous code wrote the contents of the fuse as is in the REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0], but this was wrong if you consider the contents of the table in the code comment. This table is also different from the table in the commit description. But then, which of the two is correct? If it is assumed that an unprogrammed fuse has a value of 0 then for backward compatibility of the code REFTOP_VBGADJ[2:0] must be set to 6 (b'110). Therefore, the table in the code comment can be considered correct as well as this patch. Fixes: 97c16dc8bf098 ("imx: mx6ull: update the REFTOP_VBGADJ setting") Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com> --- arch/arm/mach-imx/mx6/soc.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)