| Message ID | 1359556069-28289-7-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > When running on Integrator/AP using atags, ap_syscon_base is initialised > in ->map_io, which isn't called for !MMU platforms. Oh hm. Haha apparently there is one guy with more bizarre hobbies than myself, you're making me feel un-geeky... ;-) > Instead, initialise the pointer in ->machine_init, as we do when booting > with device-tree. I was trying to figure out if there is some case where we need it earlier but apparently not so. Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Maybe you should send this oneliner directly to the ARM SoC people? Yours, Linus Walleij
Hi Linus, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 08:21:04PM +0000, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > When running on Integrator/AP using atags, ap_syscon_base is initialised > > in ->map_io, which isn't called for !MMU platforms. > > Oh hm. Haha apparently there is one guy with more bizarre hobbies > than myself, you're making me feel un-geeky... ;-) Ha! Unfortunately, I only have one core-tile otherwise you could have one to help you feel less left-out :) > > Instead, initialise the pointer in ->machine_init, as we do when booting > > with device-tree. > > I was trying to figure out if there is some case where we need it earlier > but apparently not so. > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Cheers! > Maybe you should send this oneliner directly to the ARM SoC > people? [adding Olof and Arnd] Is it worth sending a pull request containing a single patch, or can this patch just be picked directly? Cheers, Will
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:34:17PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 08:21:04PM +0000, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > When running on Integrator/AP using atags, ap_syscon_base is initialised > > > in ->map_io, which isn't called for !MMU platforms. > > > > Oh hm. Haha apparently there is one guy with more bizarre hobbies > > than myself, you're making me feel un-geeky... ;-) > > Ha! Unfortunately, I only have one core-tile otherwise you could have one to > help you feel less left-out :) > > > > Instead, initialise the pointer in ->machine_init, as we do when booting > > > with device-tree. > > > > I was trying to figure out if there is some case where we need it earlier > > but apparently not so. > > > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > Cheers! > > > Maybe you should send this oneliner directly to the ARM SoC > > people? > > [adding Olof and Arnd] Is it worth sending a pull request containing a > single patch, or can this patch just be picked directly? Definitely ok to just send the patch like this. However -- where was the breakage introduced, i.e. what should we apply the fix to? -Olof
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:56:30PM +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:34:17PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > [adding Olof and Arnd] Is it worth sending a pull request containing a > > single patch, or can this patch just be picked directly? > > Definitely ok to just send the patch like this. However -- where was > the breakage introduced, i.e. what should we apply the fix to? I think it's been broken for a little while as it only affects !MMU configurations, which aren't especially popular. My guess is that 83feba511e5d ("ARM: integrator: remove static AP syscon mapping") is what caused the breakage. The fix should apply against mainline. Cheers, Will
On Sunday 03 February 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:56:30PM +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:34:17PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > [adding Olof and Arnd] Is it worth sending a pull request containing a > > > single patch, or can this patch just be picked directly? > > > > Definitely ok to just send the patch like this. However -- where was > > the breakage introduced, i.e. what should we apply the fix to? > > I think it's been broken for a little while as it only affects !MMU > configurations, which aren't especially popular. My guess is that > 83feba511e5d ("ARM: integrator: remove static AP syscon mapping") is what > caused the breakage. > > The fix should apply against mainline. Sounds like a candidate for stable as well then. I'm not sure if anyone cares about !MMU stable kernels, but it's totally possible with the LTSI kernels. Arnd
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-integrator/integrator_ap.c b/arch/arm/mach-integrator/integrator_ap.c index 11e2a41..26762bf 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-integrator/integrator_ap.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-integrator/integrator_ap.c @@ -613,7 +613,6 @@ static struct map_desc ap_io_desc_atag[] __initdata = { static void __init ap_map_io_atag(void) { iotable_init(ap_io_desc_atag, ARRAY_SIZE(ap_io_desc_atag)); - ap_syscon_base = __io_address(INTEGRATOR_SC_BASE); ap_map_io(); } @@ -685,6 +684,7 @@ static void __init ap_init(void) platform_device_register(&cfi_flash_device); + ap_syscon_base = __io_address(INTEGRATOR_SC_BASE); sc_dec = readl(ap_syscon_base + INTEGRATOR_SC_DEC_OFFSET); for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { struct lm_device *lmdev;
When running on Integrator/AP using atags, ap_syscon_base is initialised in ->map_io, which isn't called for !MMU platforms. Instead, initialise the pointer in ->machine_init, as we do when booting with device-tree. Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> --- arch/arm/mach-integrator/integrator_ap.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)