Hi Stephen,
On 1 August 2014 00:06, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 07/31/2014 04:10 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 31 July 2014 21:16, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 07/30/2014 03:49 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Some Tegra device tree files do not include information about the serial ports. Add this and also add information about the input clock speed.
The console alias needs to be set up to indicate which port is used for the console.
Also add a binding file since this is missing.
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts b/arch/arm/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts index 435c01e..e2426ef 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts +++ b/arch/arm/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ compatible = "nvidia,dalmore", "nvidia,tegra114";
aliases {
console = &uart_d;I don't think that's a standard alias name. There was some recent discussion in the devicetree mailing list re: using some property in /chosen for this purpose instead. U-Boot and the kernel should use the same representation here.
This is U-Boot's approach at present,
That's not the U-Boot approach on Tegra boards before this patch. I do not want Tegra U-Boot do adopt any more U-Boot-specific not-really-DT-but-pretending-to-be bindings.
if we change it then we should
change it everywhere. I worry that 'chosen' is for Linux rather than U-Boot and we might get very confused about what chosen is for?
That discussion should be had on the devicetree mailing list.
Please go ahead if you wish, but this is not a Linux issue. The aliases are used for U-Boot and have been for some time.
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/tegra114.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/tegra114.dtsi
uart_a: serial@70006000 {compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-uart";This property needs to include both the specific HW (i.e. Tegra114) and any HW it's compatible with (i.e. Tegra20).
So something like this?
compatible = "nvidia,tegra114-uart", "nvidia,tegra20-uart";
Yes.
reg = <0x70006000 0x40>;reg-shift = <2>;clock-frequency = <408000000>;This isn't a property that's defined by the Tegra serial binding. This information should be obtained by looking up the relevant clock, and querying its rate.
We can't do that in the ns16550 driver as yet since there is no generic U-Boot clock infrastructure. I suspect that will come with time.
The solution here is to put the clock infra-structure in place first. One thing I've learned from the kernel DT experience is that a lot of time would have been saved by putting the correct infra-structure in place first, then using it, rather than hacking around things the wrong way, then putting the infra-structure in place, then converting to it. That's a lot more work, and rather painful. Equally, if we don't just do the infra-structure right, there's really little guarantee that we'll ever convert to the correct approach. Just look at all the DT content in use in U-Boot that don't match the real DT bindings, even after it's been around years.
OK, is there a plan to put this in place? Who is working on it?
For reference, here's the DT node for this UART in the kernel DT, which complies with the relevant binding document:
uarta: serial@70006000 { compatible = "nvidia,tegra114-uart","nvidia,tegra20-uart";
reg = <0x70006000 0x40>; reg-shift = <2>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 36 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA114_CLK_UARTA>; resets = <&tegra_car 6>; reset-names = "serial"; dmas = <&apbdma 8>, <&apbdma 8>; dma-names = "rx", "tx"; status = "disabled"; };All the comment above apply to all the files in this patch.
My intent was to make this work with a more generic binding for now - ns16550 is a pretty standard thing and I thought I could avoid making the driver Tegra-specific. Then we could allow many SoCs to use it. Why does Tegra have its own binding in the kernel for this standard UART?
The HW is not a PC-style UART where all you care about is the 16550 registers, and clocks/resets/DMA/... can be ignored or deferred to firmware to set up before DT-driven SW runs.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Are you saying that U-Boot needs to support these things? I agree it would be great to add a generic clock/reset framework and have made considerable efforts in Tegra towards this myself. But we don't have it yet.
As an aside, /almost/ all reviewed DT bindings use DT properties of the form:
clocks = <&provider parameters>;
rather than:
clock-rate = <number>;
So, that aspect of the Tegra UART binding isn't anything remotely unusual/non-standard.
The great is the enemy of the good. In this case, I think I might just leave the clock as a #define.
Regards, Simon