| Message ID | 1349993126-9519-3-git-send-email-manabian@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> > --- > > Hi, > > This patch has some potential issues. > Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which > will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 > > Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly > > I had to create a new at91rm9200_dt_initialize since at91_dt_initialize will panic when it tries to add rstc and shdwc. > Is it okay to add at91rm9200_dt_initialize or should we fix at91_dt_rstc and at91_dt_shdwc to not panic when DT nodes are not found? it's ok > can you add a board too rm9200ek will be good Best Regards, J. > regards > Joachim Eastwood > > arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c > index e8f45c4..0e73317 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c > @@ -45,11 +45,26 @@ static void __init at91_dt_device_init(void) > of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); > } > > +static const char *at91rm9200_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { > + "atmel,at91rm9200", > + NULL > +}; > + > static const char *at91_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { > "atmel,at91sam9", > NULL > }; > > +DT_MACHINE_START(at91rm9200_dt, "Atmel AT91RM9200 (Device Tree)") > + .timer = &at91rm9200_timer, > + .map_io = at91_map_io, > + .handle_irq = at91_aic_handle_irq, > + .init_early = at91rm9200_dt_initialize, > + .init_irq = at91_dt_init_irq, > + .init_machine = at91_dt_device_init, > + .dt_compat = at91rm9200_dt_board_compat, > +MACHINE_END > + > DT_MACHINE_START(at91sam_dt, "Atmel AT91SAM (Device Tree)") > /* Maintainer: Atmel */ > .timer = &at91sam926x_timer, > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h > index f496506..9bb5ce5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ extern void __init at91_init_sram(int bank, unsigned long base, > extern void __init at91rm9200_set_type(int type); > extern void __init at91_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); > extern void __init at91x40_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); > +extern void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void); > extern void __init at91_dt_initialize(void); > > /* Interrupts */ > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > index da9881b..2c1fdd4 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ static void at91_dt_rstc(void) > } > > static struct of_device_id ramc_ids[] = { > + { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-sdramc" }, > { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc" }, > { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc" }, > { /*sentinel*/ } > @@ -436,6 +437,19 @@ end: > of_node_put(np); > } > > +void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void) > +{ > + at91_dt_ramc(); > + > + /* Init clock subsystem */ > + at91_dt_clock_init(); > + > + /* Register the processor-specific clocks */ > + at91_boot_soc.register_clocks(); > + > + at91_boot_soc.init(); > +} > + > void __init at91_dt_initialize(void) > { > at91_dt_rstc(); > -- > 1.7.12.2 >
Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : > On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> >> --- >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch has some potential issues. >> Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which >> will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. > this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 >> >> Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. > duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only > as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to prevent file duplication? Regards Ludovic >> >> I had to create a new at91rm9200_dt_initialize since at91_dt_initialize will panic when it tries to add rstc and shdwc. >> Is it okay to add at91rm9200_dt_initialize or should we fix at91_dt_rstc and at91_dt_shdwc to not panic when DT nodes are not found? > it's ok >> > > can you add a board too rm9200ek will be good > > Best Regards, > J. >> regards >> Joachim Eastwood >> >> arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h | 1 + >> arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c >> index e8f45c4..0e73317 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c >> @@ -45,11 +45,26 @@ static void __init at91_dt_device_init(void) >> of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); >> } >> >> +static const char *at91rm9200_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { >> + "atmel,at91rm9200", >> + NULL >> +}; >> + >> static const char *at91_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { >> "atmel,at91sam9", >> NULL >> }; >> >> +DT_MACHINE_START(at91rm9200_dt, "Atmel AT91RM9200 (Device Tree)") >> + .timer = &at91rm9200_timer, >> + .map_io = at91_map_io, >> + .handle_irq = at91_aic_handle_irq, >> + .init_early = at91rm9200_dt_initialize, >> + .init_irq = at91_dt_init_irq, >> + .init_machine = at91_dt_device_init, >> + .dt_compat = at91rm9200_dt_board_compat, >> +MACHINE_END >> + >> DT_MACHINE_START(at91sam_dt, "Atmel AT91SAM (Device Tree)") >> /* Maintainer: Atmel */ >> .timer = &at91sam926x_timer, >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h >> index f496506..9bb5ce5 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h >> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ extern void __init at91_init_sram(int bank, unsigned long base, >> extern void __init at91rm9200_set_type(int type); >> extern void __init at91_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); >> extern void __init at91x40_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); >> +extern void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void); >> extern void __init at91_dt_initialize(void); >> >> /* Interrupts */ >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c >> index da9881b..2c1fdd4 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c >> @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ static void at91_dt_rstc(void) >> } >> >> static struct of_device_id ramc_ids[] = { >> + { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-sdramc" }, >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc" }, >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc" }, >> { /*sentinel*/ } >> @@ -436,6 +437,19 @@ end: >> of_node_put(np); >> } >> >> +void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void) >> +{ >> + at91_dt_ramc(); >> + >> + /* Init clock subsystem */ >> + at91_dt_clock_init(); >> + >> + /* Register the processor-specific clocks */ >> + at91_boot_soc.register_clocks(); >> + >> + at91_boot_soc.init(); >> +} >> + >> void __init at91_dt_initialize(void) >> { >> at91_dt_rstc(); >> -- >> 1.7.12.2 >> > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > >
On 17:28 Fri 12 Oct , ludovic.desroches wrote: > Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : > >On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > >>Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> > >>--- > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>This patch has some potential issues. > >>Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which > >>will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. > >this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 > >> > >>Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. > >duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only > >as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly > > Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to > prevent file duplication? because the soc are different and can only be compile if the timer is enable and I do not want to enable the rm9200 timer on sam9 so instead of a ifdef i the board-dt create a new board is better as we have a 50 lines file with different board_compat and different machine descriptor Best Regards, J. > > Regards > > Ludovic > > >> > >>I had to create a new at91rm9200_dt_initialize since at91_dt_initialize will panic when it tries to add rstc and shdwc. > >>Is it okay to add at91rm9200_dt_initialize or should we fix at91_dt_rstc and at91_dt_shdwc to not panic when DT nodes are not found? > >it's ok > >> > > > >can you add a board too rm9200ek will be good > > > >Best Regards, > >J. > >>regards > >>Joachim Eastwood > >> > >> arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > >> arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h | 1 + > >> arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > >> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+) > >> > >>diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c > >>index e8f45c4..0e73317 100644 > >>--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c > >>+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c > >>@@ -45,11 +45,26 @@ static void __init at91_dt_device_init(void) > >> of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); > >> } > >> > >>+static const char *at91rm9200_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { > >>+ "atmel,at91rm9200", > >>+ NULL > >>+}; > >>+ > >> static const char *at91_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { > >> "atmel,at91sam9", > >> NULL > >> }; > >> > >>+DT_MACHINE_START(at91rm9200_dt, "Atmel AT91RM9200 (Device Tree)") > >>+ .timer = &at91rm9200_timer, > >>+ .map_io = at91_map_io, > >>+ .handle_irq = at91_aic_handle_irq, > >>+ .init_early = at91rm9200_dt_initialize, > >>+ .init_irq = at91_dt_init_irq, > >>+ .init_machine = at91_dt_device_init, > >>+ .dt_compat = at91rm9200_dt_board_compat, > >>+MACHINE_END > >>+ > >> DT_MACHINE_START(at91sam_dt, "Atmel AT91SAM (Device Tree)") > >> /* Maintainer: Atmel */ > >> .timer = &at91sam926x_timer, > >>diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h > >>index f496506..9bb5ce5 100644 > >>--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h > >>+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h > >>@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ extern void __init at91_init_sram(int bank, unsigned long base, > >> extern void __init at91rm9200_set_type(int type); > >> extern void __init at91_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); > >> extern void __init at91x40_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); > >>+extern void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void); > >> extern void __init at91_dt_initialize(void); > >> > >> /* Interrupts */ > >>diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > >>index da9881b..2c1fdd4 100644 > >>--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > >>+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c > >>@@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ static void at91_dt_rstc(void) > >> } > >> > >> static struct of_device_id ramc_ids[] = { > >>+ { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-sdramc" }, > >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc" }, > >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc" }, > >> { /*sentinel*/ } > >>@@ -436,6 +437,19 @@ end: > >> of_node_put(np); > >> } > >> > >>+void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void) > >>+{ > >>+ at91_dt_ramc(); > >>+ > >>+ /* Init clock subsystem */ > >>+ at91_dt_clock_init(); > >>+ > >>+ /* Register the processor-specific clocks */ > >>+ at91_boot_soc.register_clocks(); > >>+ > >>+ at91_boot_soc.init(); > >>+} > >>+ > >> void __init at91_dt_initialize(void) > >> { > >> at91_dt_rstc(); > >>-- > >>1.7.12.2 > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ > >linux-arm-kernel mailing list > >linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > >http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > > > > >
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > On 17:28 Fri 12 Oct , ludovic.desroches wrote: >> Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : >> >On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >> >>Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> >> >>--- >> >> >> >>Hi, >> >> >> >>This patch has some potential issues. >> >>Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which >> >>will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. >> >this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 btw, to solve the build issue with board-dt in mainline now we need to add a select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9 to config MACH_AT91SAM_DT. >> >> >> >>Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. >> >duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only >> >as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly >> >> Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to >> prevent file duplication? > because the soc are different and can only be compile if the timer is enable > and I do not want to enable the rm9200 timer on sam9 so instead of a ifdef i > the board-dt create a new board is better as we have a 50 lines file > > with different board_compat and different machine descriptor I am okey with either approach, but I would like to hear what Nicolas Ferre has to say since he is the on the one that added board-dt. It would be nice to have everything in one board DT file, but I understand your concern with the RM9200 timer. We will also bump into this again on AT91X40 I guess. regards Joachim Eastwood
On 19:08 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > On 17:28 Fri 12 Oct , ludovic.desroches wrote: > >> Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : > >> >On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > >> >>Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> > >> >>--- > >> >> > >> >>Hi, > >> >> > >> >>This patch has some potential issues. > >> >>Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which > >> >>will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. > >> >this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 > > btw, to solve the build issue with board-dt in mainline now we need to > add a select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9 to config MACH_AT91SAM_DT. > > >> >> > >> >>Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. > >> >duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only > >> >as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly > >> > >> Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to > >> prevent file duplication? > > because the soc are different and can only be compile if the timer is enable > > and I do not want to enable the rm9200 timer on sam9 so instead of a ifdef i > > the board-dt create a new board is better as we have a 50 lines file > > > > with different board_compat and different machine descriptor > > I am okey with either approach, but I would like to hear what Nicolas > Ferre has to say since he is the on the one that added board-dt. It > would be nice to have everything in one board DT file, but I > understand your concern with the RM9200 timer. > > We will also bump into this again on AT91X40 I guess. simple on x40 forget about it the x40 is no MMU only SoC so you can not enable it by default as the all other at91 are use with MMU I did the necessary to make the board-dt nearly empty and the same for all the sam9 but the board-dt is sam9 only and need to be keeped this way Nico will tell you the same Best Regards, J.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > On 19:08 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >> <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >> > On 17:28 Fri 12 Oct , ludovic.desroches wrote: >> >> Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : >> >> >On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >> >> >>Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> >> >> >>--- >> >> >> >> >> >>Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >>This patch has some potential issues. >> >> >>Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which >> >> >>will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. >> >> >this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 >> >> btw, to solve the build issue with board-dt in mainline now we need to >> add a select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9 to config MACH_AT91SAM_DT. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. >> >> >duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only >> >> >as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly >> >> >> >> Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to >> >> prevent file duplication? >> > because the soc are different and can only be compile if the timer is enable >> > and I do not want to enable the rm9200 timer on sam9 so instead of a ifdef i >> > the board-dt create a new board is better as we have a 50 lines file >> > >> > with different board_compat and different machine descriptor >> >> I am okey with either approach, but I would like to hear what Nicolas >> Ferre has to say since he is the on the one that added board-dt. It >> would be nice to have everything in one board DT file, but I >> understand your concern with the RM9200 timer. >> >> We will also bump into this again on AT91X40 I guess. > simple on x40 forget about it the x40 is no MMU only SoC > > so you can not enable it by default as the all other at91 are use with MMU > > I did the necessary to make the board-dt nearly empty and the same for all the > sam9 but the board-dt is sam9 only and need to be keeped this way > > Nico will tell you the same okay. I'll make the necessary changes to the patch set. I'll also include a fix for board-dt (select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9) to stop the build failure when it's enabled on a RM9200 only config. Secondly I'll rebase on linux-next which includes your at91-pinctrl stuff. regards Joachim Eastwood > Best Regards, > J.
On 18:39 Sun 14 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > On 19:08 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > >> <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > >> > On 17:28 Fri 12 Oct , ludovic.desroches wrote: > >> >> Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : > >> >> >On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > >> >> >>Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> > >> >> >>--- > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Hi, > >> >> >> > >> >> >>This patch has some potential issues. > >> >> >>Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which > >> >> >>will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. > >> >> >this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 > >> > >> btw, to solve the build issue with board-dt in mainline now we need to > >> add a select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9 to config MACH_AT91SAM_DT. > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. > >> >> >duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only > >> >> >as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly > >> >> > >> >> Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to > >> >> prevent file duplication? > >> > because the soc are different and can only be compile if the timer is enable > >> > and I do not want to enable the rm9200 timer on sam9 so instead of a ifdef i > >> > the board-dt create a new board is better as we have a 50 lines file > >> > > >> > with different board_compat and different machine descriptor > >> > >> I am okey with either approach, but I would like to hear what Nicolas > >> Ferre has to say since he is the on the one that added board-dt. It > >> would be nice to have everything in one board DT file, but I > >> understand your concern with the RM9200 timer. > >> > >> We will also bump into this again on AT91X40 I guess. > > simple on x40 forget about it the x40 is no MMU only SoC > > > > so you can not enable it by default as the all other at91 are use with MMU > > > > I did the necessary to make the board-dt nearly empty and the same for all the > > sam9 but the board-dt is sam9 only and need to be keeped this way > > > > Nico will tell you the same > > okay. I'll make the necessary changes to the patch set. > > I'll also include a fix for board-dt (select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9) to > stop the build failure when it's enabled on a RM9200 only config. if rm9200 only the board-dt does not have to be enabled as you do not have the clock for any of the soc Best Regards, J.
On 10/14/2012 04:54 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD : > On 19:08 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >> <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >>> On 17:28 Fri 12 Oct , ludovic.desroches wrote: >>>> Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : >>>>> On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch has some potential issues. >>>>>> Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which >>>>>> will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. >>>>> this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 >> >> btw, to solve the build issue with board-dt in mainline now we need to >> add a select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9 to config MACH_AT91SAM_DT. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. >>>>> duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only >>>>> as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly >>>> >>>> Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to >>>> prevent file duplication? >>> because the soc are different and can only be compile if the timer is enable >>> and I do not want to enable the rm9200 timer on sam9 so instead of a ifdef i >>> the board-dt create a new board is better as we have a 50 lines file >>> >>> with different board_compat and different machine descriptor >> >> I am okey with either approach, but I would like to hear what Nicolas >> Ferre has to say since he is the on the one that added board-dt. It >> would be nice to have everything in one board DT file, but I >> understand your concern with the RM9200 timer. >> >> We will also bump into this again on AT91X40 I guess. > simple on x40 forget about it the x40 is no MMU only SoC > > so you can not enable it by default as the all other at91 are use with MMU > > I did the necessary to make the board-dt nearly empty and the same for all the > sam9 but the board-dt is sam9 only and need to be keeped this way > > Nico will tell you the same Please, do not speak instead of me! And even if I often agree with you, it is far from being automatic ;-) Bye,
On 10/14/2012 06:39 PM, Joachim Eastwood : > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >> On 19:08 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >>> <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >>>> On 17:28 Fri 12 Oct , ludovic.desroches wrote: >>>>> Le 10/12/2012 04:22 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit : >>>>>> On 00:05 Fri 12 Oct , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This patch has some potential issues. >>>>>>> Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which >>>>>>> will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. >>>>>> this need work with ot wtihout rm9200 >>> >>> btw, to solve the build issue with board-dt in mainline now we need to >>> add a select CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9 to config MACH_AT91SAM_DT. >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. >>>>>> duplicate the board-dt with one for rm9200 only >>>>>> as rm9200 ans sam9 are 2 distict familly >>>>> >>>>> Why not adding a new machine descriptor for rm9200 in order to >>>>> prevent file duplication? >>>> because the soc are different and can only be compile if the timer is enable >>>> and I do not want to enable the rm9200 timer on sam9 so instead of a ifdef i >>>> the board-dt create a new board is better as we have a 50 lines file >>>> >>>> with different board_compat and different machine descriptor >>> >>> I am okey with either approach, but I would like to hear what Nicolas >>> Ferre has to say since he is the on the one that added board-dt. It >>> would be nice to have everything in one board DT file, but I >>> understand your concern with the RM9200 timer. >>> >>> We will also bump into this again on AT91X40 I guess. >> simple on x40 forget about it the x40 is no MMU only SoC >> >> so you can not enable it by default as the all other at91 are use with MMU >> >> I did the necessary to make the board-dt nearly empty and the same for all the >> sam9 but the board-dt is sam9 only and need to be keeped this way >> >> Nico will tell you the same > > okay. I'll make the necessary changes to the patch set. Well, even if did not see the advantage of a new board-dt specifically for rm9200 (and armv4 and armv5 may share the same zImage in the future...), I understand the fact that compiling the rm9200 timer for a sam9 machine is a bit surprising. So I have a pretty mixed feelings about that, but I will not go against Jean-Christophe nor you Joachim: so continue in this path, we will be able to merge all board-*-dt later if needed anyway... Bye,
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c index e8f45c4..0e73317 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c @@ -45,11 +45,26 @@ static void __init at91_dt_device_init(void) of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); } +static const char *at91rm9200_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { + "atmel,at91rm9200", + NULL +}; + static const char *at91_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { "atmel,at91sam9", NULL }; +DT_MACHINE_START(at91rm9200_dt, "Atmel AT91RM9200 (Device Tree)") + .timer = &at91rm9200_timer, + .map_io = at91_map_io, + .handle_irq = at91_aic_handle_irq, + .init_early = at91rm9200_dt_initialize, + .init_irq = at91_dt_init_irq, + .init_machine = at91_dt_device_init, + .dt_compat = at91rm9200_dt_board_compat, +MACHINE_END + DT_MACHINE_START(at91sam_dt, "Atmel AT91SAM (Device Tree)") /* Maintainer: Atmel */ .timer = &at91sam926x_timer, diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h index f496506..9bb5ce5 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ extern void __init at91_init_sram(int bank, unsigned long base, extern void __init at91rm9200_set_type(int type); extern void __init at91_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); extern void __init at91x40_initialize(unsigned long main_clock); +extern void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void); extern void __init at91_dt_initialize(void); /* Interrupts */ diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c index da9881b..2c1fdd4 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ static void at91_dt_rstc(void) } static struct of_device_id ramc_ids[] = { + { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-sdramc" }, { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc" }, { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc" }, { /*sentinel*/ } @@ -436,6 +437,19 @@ end: of_node_put(np); } +void __init at91rm9200_dt_initialize(void) +{ + at91_dt_ramc(); + + /* Init clock subsystem */ + at91_dt_clock_init(); + + /* Register the processor-specific clocks */ + at91_boot_soc.register_clocks(); + + at91_boot_soc.init(); +} + void __init at91_dt_initialize(void) { at91_dt_rstc();
Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com> --- Hi, This patch has some potential issues. Before this patch board-dt would fail building when only AT91RM9200 was enabled because at91sam926x_timer symbol would be missing. This patch uses the at91rm9200_timer which will fail if AT91RM9200 is not enabled. Any thoughts on solving this? As mention above this bug exists in mainline now. I had to create a new at91rm9200_dt_initialize since at91_dt_initialize will panic when it tries to add rstc and shdwc. Is it okay to add at91rm9200_dt_initialize or should we fix at91_dt_rstc and at91_dt_shdwc to not panic when DT nodes are not found? regards Joachim Eastwood arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h | 1 + arch/arm/mach-at91/setup.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+)