| Message ID | 0a88d52b5e71fb220ca619180ec9ca746edad2b1.1415962281.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Michal, Am 14.11.2014 um 11:52 schrieb Michal Simek: > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > index ce2ef5bec4f2..e217fb1c1169 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > @@ -150,6 +150,13 @@ > reg = <0xf8006000 0x1000>; > }; > > + ocmc: memory-controller@f800c000 { > + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-ocmc-1.0"; > + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; > + interrupts = <0 3 4>; > + reg = <0xf800c000 0x1000>; > + }; > + > uart0: serial@e0000000 { > compatible = "xlnx,xuartps", "cdns,uart-r1p8"; > status = "disabled"; Not directly related to this patch: As one can see here, the node order is quite a mess... According to Olof, nodes should be ordered by unit address, whereas here some but not all seem ordered by node name. Would you welcome a cleanup patch, or can you fix that yourself? Regards, Andreas
On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 11:51AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Am 14.11.2014 um 11:52 schrieb Michal Simek: > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > > index ce2ef5bec4f2..e217fb1c1169 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > > @@ -150,6 +150,13 @@ > > reg = <0xf8006000 0x1000>; > > }; > > > > + ocmc: memory-controller@f800c000 { > > + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-ocmc-1.0"; > > + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; > > + interrupts = <0 3 4>; > > + reg = <0xf800c000 0x1000>; > > + }; > > + > > uart0: serial@e0000000 { > > compatible = "xlnx,xuartps", "cdns,uart-r1p8"; > > status = "disabled"; > > Not directly related to this patch: As one can see here, the node order > is quite a mess... According to Olof, nodes should be ordered by unit > address, whereas here some but not all seem ordered by node name. Would > you welcome a cleanup patch, or can you fix that yourself? I wouldn't say it's a mess, just a different property to sort the nodes by. For humans reading the DT, searching for nodes, alphabetical order helps finding the right node, IMHO. What advantage would sorting by address have? Thanks, Sören
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 11:51AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Am 14.11.2014 um 11:52 schrieb Michal Simek: >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi >> > index ce2ef5bec4f2..e217fb1c1169 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi >> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi >> > @@ -150,6 +150,13 @@ >> > reg = <0xf8006000 0x1000>; >> > }; >> > >> > + ocmc: memory-controller@f800c000 { >> > + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-ocmc-1.0"; >> > + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; >> > + interrupts = <0 3 4>; >> > + reg = <0xf800c000 0x1000>; >> > + }; >> > + >> > uart0: serial@e0000000 { >> > compatible = "xlnx,xuartps", "cdns,uart-r1p8"; >> > status = "disabled"; >> >> Not directly related to this patch: As one can see here, the node order >> is quite a mess... According to Olof, nodes should be ordered by unit >> address, whereas here some but not all seem ordered by node name. Would >> you welcome a cleanup patch, or can you fix that yourself? > > I wouldn't say it's a mess, just a different property to sort the nodes > by. For humans reading the DT, searching for nodes, alphabetical order > helps finding the right node, IMHO. I do generally find myself asking "whats that thing at that address" more than I find myself asking the "wheres that piece of hardware" so Andreas' sorting scheme makes more sense to me. Vertically scanning a DT to give yourself an overview of the system level address map is good too. Wheras alphabetic sorting doesn't mean to much. Regards, Peter What advantage would sorting by > address have? > > Thanks, > Sören > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On 11/17/2014 12:00 AM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Sören Brinkmann > <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 11:51AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> Am 14.11.2014 um 11:52 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi >>>> index ce2ef5bec4f2..e217fb1c1169 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi >>>> @@ -150,6 +150,13 @@ >>>> reg = <0xf8006000 0x1000>; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> + ocmc: memory-controller@f800c000 { >>>> + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-ocmc-1.0"; >>>> + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; >>>> + interrupts = <0 3 4>; >>>> + reg = <0xf800c000 0x1000>; >>>> + }; >>>> + >>>> uart0: serial@e0000000 { >>>> compatible = "xlnx,xuartps", "cdns,uart-r1p8"; >>>> status = "disabled"; >>> >>> Not directly related to this patch: As one can see here, the node order >>> is quite a mess... According to Olof, nodes should be ordered by unit >>> address, whereas here some but not all seem ordered by node name. Would >>> you welcome a cleanup patch, or can you fix that yourself? >> >> I wouldn't say it's a mess, just a different property to sort the nodes >> by. For humans reading the DT, searching for nodes, alphabetical order >> helps finding the right node, IMHO. > > I do generally find myself asking "whats that thing at that address" > more than I find myself asking the "wheres that piece of hardware" so > Andreas' sorting scheme makes more sense to me. Vertically scanning a > DT to give yourself an overview of the system level address map is > good too. Wheras alphabetic sorting doesn't mean to much. IMHO the reason why we have names in DT is that it is easily to read/understand them that's why name sorting seems to me more reasonable. Something like machine code and assembler - asm is also sorted by names not by opcode. Is this strict rule? Thanks, Michal
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi index ce2ef5bec4f2..e217fb1c1169 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi @@ -150,6 +150,13 @@ reg = <0xf8006000 0x1000>; }; + ocmc: memory-controller@f800c000 { + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-ocmc-1.0"; + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; + interrupts = <0 3 4>; + reg = <0xf800c000 0x1000>; + }; + uart0: serial@e0000000 { compatible = "xlnx,xuartps", "cdns,uart-r1p8"; status = "disabled";
Add the on-chip-memory controller node to the Zynq devicetree. Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> --- Changes in v4: - Use memory-controller@... instead of ocmc@... Changes in v3: - Extract from OCM driver Changes in v2: None arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) -- 1.8.2.3