On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 14:00 +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:57 PM Chee, Tien Fong tien.fong.chee@intel.com wrote:
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 13:53 +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:44 PM Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 5/24/19 1:40 PM, tien.fong.chee@intel.com wrote:
From: Tien Fong Chee tien.fong.chee@intel.com
Current implementation almost release all peripherals out of reset for gen5, but A10 has more peripherals than gen5, hence this patch is required to release the rest of peripherals to support old kernels.
Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee tien.fong.chee@intel.com
drivers/reset/reset-socfpga.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/reset/reset-socfpga.c b/drivers/reset/reset- socfpga.c index cb8312619f..d8b8b25fc3 100644 --- a/drivers/reset/reset-socfpga.c +++ b/drivers/reset/reset-socfpga.c @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ static int socfpga_reset_remove(struct udevice *dev) if (socfpga_reset_keep_enabled()) { puts("Deasserting all peripheral resets\n"); writel(0, data->modrst_base + 4); +#if defined(CONFIG_TARGET_SOCFPGA_ARRIA10) + writel(0, data->modrst_base + 8);
This should be using match on compatible string. Which register is this modrst_base + 8 ?
Well, even modrst_base + 4 is not really ideal. After all, modrst_base is a dts-given offset into the rstmgr's registers, so there is not really a comptile time known constant to do this.
Maybe it would be better to use an offset to the device's membase. However, as this is a backwards-compatibility workaround, there's no use to add this into the devicetree.
And unfortunately, both gen5 and a10 use the same compatible string, which probably would have to be changed.
Regards, Simon
This register is per1modrst, here is the link https://www.intel.com /con tent/www/us/en/programmable/hps/arria- 10/hps.html#reg_soc_top/sfo1429890576520.html This whole mechanism should be removed once Dinh has fixed this issue at Linux v4.14-lts or moving to Linux v5.0 onwards.
I agree it can be removed in the future, but is it really enough to have this in 4.14-lts? I'm not so sure that we should prevent people from using mainline U-Boot with older kernels...
I have no strong opinion on this, but how old the kernel U-Boot want to support, subject to the maintainer :) .
Regards, Simon
+#endif }
return 0;
-- Best regards, Marek Vasut