diff mbox

[7/7] ARM i.MX5: Add system reset controller (SRC) to i.MX51 and i.MX53 device tree

Message ID 1358352787-15441-8-git-send-email-p.zabel@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Philipp Zabel Jan. 16, 2013, 4:13 p.m. UTC
Also, link SRC to IPU via phandle.

Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51.dtsi |    7 +++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53.dtsi |    7 +++++++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)

Comments

Stephen Warren Jan. 16, 2013, 10:19 p.m. UTC | #1
On 01/16/2013 09:13 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Also, link SRC to IPU via phandle.

Aside from the comments I already made, the series,
Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

although I'm not 100% sure if the ordering of patches maintains a
working i.MX build all the time? Does "git bisect" work across the series?

Who would merge these patches?
Shawn Guo Jan. 17, 2013, 6:37 a.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:19:44PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 01/16/2013 09:13 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Also, link SRC to IPU via phandle.
> 
> Aside from the comments I already made, the series,
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> 
> although I'm not 100% sure if the ordering of patches maintains a
> working i.MX build all the time? Does "git bisect" work across the series?
> 
> Who would merge these patches?

I would assume IMX --> arm-soc --> mainline?

Philipp, please copy arm-soc folks (Arnd and Olof) on the next post,
so that they can get a chance to review this tiny reset subsystem.

Shawn
Philipp Zabel Jan. 17, 2013, 10:45 a.m. UTC | #3
Am Mittwoch, den 16.01.2013, 15:19 -0700 schrieb Stephen Warren:
> On 01/16/2013 09:13 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Also, link SRC to IPU via phandle.
> 
> Aside from the comments I already made, the series,
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

Thank you.

> although I'm not 100% sure if the ordering of patches maintains a
> working i.MX build all the time? Does "git bisect" work across the series?

Since IPU probing doesn't succeed if device_reset() fails, the IPU patch
needs to be ordered after the i.MX5 patches.

On the other hand, should device_reset() fail at all if no reset
controller was specified in the device tree?

regards
Philipp
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51.dtsi
index 1f5d45e..1ff0adf 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51.dtsi
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ 
 			compatible = "fsl,imx51-ipu";
 			reg = <0x40000000 0x20000000>;
 			interrupts = <11 10>;
+			resets = <&src 2>;
 		};
 
 		aips@70000000 { /* AIPS1 */
@@ -448,6 +449,12 @@ 
 				status = "disabled";
 			};
 
+			src: src@73fd0000 {
+				compatible = "fsl,imx5-src";
+				reg = <0x73fd0000 0x4000>;
+				#reset-cells = <1>;
+			};
+
 			clks: ccm@73fd4000{
 				compatible = "fsl,imx51-ccm";
 				reg = <0x73fd4000 0x4000>;
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53.dtsi
index edc3f1e..088dc49 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53.dtsi
@@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ 
 			compatible = "fsl,imx53-ipu";
 			reg = <0x18000000 0x080000000>;
 			interrupts = <11 10>;
+			resets = <&src 2>;
 		};
 
 		aips@50000000 { /* AIPS1 */
@@ -497,6 +498,12 @@ 
 				status = "disabled";
 			};
 
+			src: src@53fd0000 {
+				compatible = "fsl,imx5-src";
+				reg = <0x53fd0000 0x4000>;
+				#reset-cells = <1>;
+			};
+
 			clks: ccm@53fd4000{
 				compatible = "fsl,imx53-ccm";
 				reg = <0x53fd4000 0x4000>;