Hi Simon,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 13 December 2015 at 05:52, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Find the LPC device in arch_cpu_init_dm() as a first step to converting this code to use driver model. Probing the LPC will probe its parent (the PCH) automatically, so make sure that probing the PCH does nothing before relocation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/bd82x6x.c | 3 +++ arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/cpu.c | 6 +++++- arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/lpc.c | 6 ++++++ arch/x86/dts/chromebook_link.dts | 1 + 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/bd82x6x.c b/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/bd82x6x.c index abd59da..be39bcd 100644 --- a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/bd82x6x.c +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/bd82x6x.c @@ -64,6 +64,9 @@ static int bd82x6x_probe(struct udevice *dev) int sata_node, gma_node; int ret;
if (!(gd->flags & GD_FLG_RELOC))return 0;hose = pci_bus_to_hose(0); lpc_enable(PCH_LPC_DEV); lpc_init(hose, PCH_LPC_DEV);diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/cpu.c b/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/cpu.c index 0387444..fd7e1fc 100644 --- a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/cpu.c +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/cpu.c @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ int arch_cpu_init_dm(void) { const void *blob = gd->fdt_blob; struct pci_controller *hose;
struct udevice *bus;
struct udevice *bus, *dev; int node; int ret;@@ -141,6 +141,10 @@ int arch_cpu_init_dm(void) /* TODO(sjg@chromium.org): Get rid of gd->hose */ gd->hose = hose;
ret = uclass_first_device(UCLASS_LPC, &dev);if (!dev)return -ENODEV;node = fdtdec_next_compatible(blob, 0, COMPAT_INTEL_PCH); if (node < 0) return -ENOENT;diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/lpc.c b/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/lpc.c index 3efd3e8..04a7451 100644 --- a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/lpc.c +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/lpc.c @@ -568,6 +568,11 @@ void lpc_enable(pci_dev_t dev) setbits_le32(RCB_REG(FD2), PCH_ENABLE_DBDF); }
+static int bd82x6x_lpc_probe(struct udevice *dev) +{
return 0;+}
static const struct udevice_id bd82x6x_lpc_ids[] = { { .compatible = "intel,bd82x6x-lpc" }, { } @@ -577,4 +582,5 @@ U_BOOT_DRIVER(bd82x6x_lpc_drv) = { .name = "lpc", .id = UCLASS_LPC, .of_match = bd82x6x_lpc_ids,
.probe = bd82x6x_lpc_probe,}; diff --git a/arch/x86/dts/chromebook_link.dts b/arch/x86/dts/chromebook_link.dts index 4d158da..7a009db 100644 --- a/arch/x86/dts/chromebook_link.dts +++ b/arch/x86/dts/chromebook_link.dts @@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ compatible = "intel,bd82x6x-lpc"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>;
u-boot,dm-pre-reloc; cros-ec@200 { compatible = "google,cros-ec"; reg = <0x204 1 0x200 1 0x880 0x80>;--
The codes look good to me, but I have one question: what is the LPC uclass for? My understanding is that we already have the PCH uclass, which is for the bridge. LPC uclass seems to be duplicated. We can have cros-ec directly attached to the PCH node in the device tree.
I was going to mention that in the cover letter.
At present I have the northbridge as 0,0,0 device. The PCH is at 0,1f,0. Looking at the Intel datasheets the LPC is one of the pieces in the PCH. SPI is another piece. So I came up with having the PCH as the parent device and LPC and SPI as children.
But LPC is using the same PCI configuration space registers (b.d.f = 0.1f.0) as PCH for the programming interface, not like SPI which is I/O space. With LPC uclass, we put LPC as the child node of the PCH node, so if we access LPC configuration space registers, we end up using LPC's parent device as the parameter for the DM PCI APIs. This looks odd to me.
This unfortunately affects IRQ router as well, if we put IRQ router as the child node under PCH. Can we just merge all of these into one PCH uclass?
Regards, Bin