Looking at the usb_validation_uboot_patch.diff [2] this seems to be
done with something like patch in attachment.
I built a uboot with this (attachment, too), anybody likes to test?
Does USB host feel better with this? Note that kernel CONFIG_OMAP_MUX
has to be disabled for this, as enabled CONFIG_OMAP_MUX overwrites
uboot's pin mux settings.
Thanks
Dirk
(*) "but, there are still many errors in the transmissions"
[1] http://www.beagleboard.org/irclogs/index.php?date=2008-05-18#T15:21:01
[2] http://code.google.com/p/beagleboard/wiki/USBHostTestREPRODUCE
For MUX settings hopefully this makes checking easier:
1. u-boot_1_1_4_beagle_pin_mux.txt (attachment)
2. linux_git_beagle_pin_mux.txt (attachment)
Note: Ball names not from OMAP3530 (?)
3. Beagle HW manual (schematic with pin/balls)
http://www.beagleboard.org/uploads/Beagle_HW_Reference_Manual_A_5.pdf
4. OMAP3 pin mux
SPRUF98.pdf, page 684, section 6.4.4.3 Pad Multiplexing Register
Fields, Table 6-4
Dirk
I started (not ready yet) comparing u-boot_1_1_4_beagle_pin_mux.txt
with pin mux in above OMAP3 TRM. First results:
1) Empty #define CONTROL_PADCONF_ in uboot mux config definitions.
-> Copy & paste error?
2) MUX_VAL(CP(ETK_D15), (IEN | PTU | EN | M4)) /*GPIO_29*/\
is wrong. Has to be ETK_D15_ES2 to configure GPIO_29. Beagle HW manual:
"GPIO_29 SD Write protect lead. Can be polled or set to an interrupt."
With ETK_D15 we write to non existing (?) register.
3)
CONTROL_PADCONF_ETK_D11_ES2 0x05F2
CONTROL_PADCONF_ETK_D12_ES2 0x05F4
CONTROL_PADCONF_ETK_D13_ES2 0x05F6
CONTROL_PADCONF_ETK_D14_ES2 0x05F8
are not touched by uboot pin mux. Is this correct?
4)
sys_nreswarm 0x0A08
jtag_rtck 0x0A4E
jtag_tdo 0x0A50
are not touched by uboot pin mux. Is this correct?
More to come,
Dirk