Hi Tom,
On 14/05/13 17:52, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:24:41PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote:
Hi Tom,
I'm currently busy with other work; on the other hand, careful rebasing shall require some time, especially the Palmas stuff. What would be the deadline for a V2 submission?
Meanwhile could you please have a look at the (already old) http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/232743/? A simple patch, shall be needed if we enable USB (for the uEVM along with our board). In general, what are your plans regarding USB (.../patch/232742/)?
Thanks for the reminder, I'll grab 232743 soon. 232742 looks OK, but do you have a patch around for uEVM still?
Not yet (didn't have the opportunity to test, although some uEVMs should be around at MMS). As you know, a patch shall be needed in the uEVM board file along with the common USB stuff.
And again on I2C (.../patch/233823/): what is you final opinion? I'm confident that this patch is a major improvement for OMAP4/5 at least.
I'm inclined to go with it, just need to mentally unswap the i2c notes in my brain and think it over one more time.
Just applied 233823 to current u-boot-ti master. Works fine.
[snip]
* TODO: Replace this ugly hardcoding with proper defines +*/ + writel(0x0100, 0x4ae0a310);
Again, do please.
This should be (*scrm)->auxclk0. The problem is that the omap5_scrm_regs struct (holding the auxclk0 member) has to be defined somewhere in the common OMAP5 headers. Sricharan? Or should I hack around?
Add it to the most likely struct in the headers.
The entire struct (I call it omap5_scrm_regs in theory, similar to the corresponding omap4_scrm_regs for OMAP4) is not defined anywhere. Of course I could define only the member that I need, but I guess it is a (responsible) TI job to define hardware descriptors. Or I'm wrong? Please advise. If I have time, I could do it myself - it's some 27 registers, almost identical to the OMAP4, and should go into arch/arm/include/asm/arch-omap5/clocks.h.
Whomever uses / needs it should do it. I gave the TRM a quick read and I don't see any conflicts per-se just some reserved areas being named and vice versa. So rename it to omap_scrm_regs and move to <asm/omap_common.h>. Thanks!
I would argue that this is not very appropriate. Those regs that are reserved on the OMAP5 are related to altclkscr and auxclk5 on the OMAP4; on the other hand the OMAP5 has some modem clock regs that are reserved on OMAP4. We shall probably have ugly #ifdefs again. And what about OMAP3 and below?
Currently the scrm struct is defined for OMAP4 in the asm/arch-omap4/clocks.h file and I have already done the same for OMAP5 by analogy. I must admit however that this approach does not correspond to the latest way by which groups of OMAP hardware regs are defined, prcm in particular - a struct in omap_common.h, holding only the required regs, no padding and such garbage, and an init with the physical addresses in a .c file for the particular SoC (prcm-regs.c). But still the Panda board, for example, uses the old way for scrm. Therefore I did it the same for OMAP5, which was easier (I'm old and lazy ;) ).
Otherwise (a struct in omap_common.h) we shall need new scrm-regs.c files for every OMAP flavor. Which way to go?
Regards, Lubo