On 7/10/2015 2:54 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:06:52AM +0800, Josh Wu wrote:
Hi, Maxime

On 7/9/2015 8:03 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi,

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 06:15:46PM +0800, Josh Wu wrote:
As since sama5d3, to reset the chip, we don't need to shutdown the ddr
controller.

So add a new compatible string and new restart function for sama5d3 and
later chips. As we don't use sama5d3 ddr controller, so remove it as
well.

Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh...@atmel.com>
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.fe...@atmel.com>
---

  drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c
index 36dc52f..8944b63 100644
--- a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c
+++ b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c
@@ -123,6 +123,14 @@ static int at91sam9g45_restart(struct notifier_block 
*this, unsigned long mode,
        return NOTIFY_DONE;
  }
+static int sama5d3_restart(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long mode,
+                       void *cmd)
+{
+       writel(cpu_to_le32(AT91_RSTC_KEY | AT91_RSTC_PERRST | 
AT91_RSTC_PROCRST),
+                               at91_rstc_base);
+       return NOTIFY_DONE;
+}
+
  static void __init at91_reset_status(struct platform_device *pdev)
  {
        u32 reg = readl(at91_rstc_base + AT91_RSTC_SR);
@@ -155,13 +163,13 @@ static void __init at91_reset_status(struct 
platform_device *pdev)
  static const struct of_device_id at91_ramc_of_match[] = {
        { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc", },
        { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc", },
-       { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-ddramc", },
        { /* sentinel */ }
  };
  static const struct of_device_id at91_reset_of_match[] = {
        { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-rstc", .data = at91sam9260_restart },
        { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-rstc", .data = at91sam9g45_restart },
+       { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-rstc", .data = sama5d3_restart },
        { /* sentinel */ }
  };
@@ -181,17 +189,21 @@ static int at91_reset_of_probe(struct platform_device 
*pdev)
                return -ENODEV;
        }
-       for_each_matching_node(np, at91_ramc_of_match) {
-               at91_ramc_base[idx] = of_iomap(np, 0);
-               if (!at91_ramc_base[idx]) {
-                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Could not map ram controller 
address\n");
-                       return -ENODEV;
+       match = of_match_node(at91_reset_of_match, pdev->dev.of_node);
+       at91_restart_nb.notifier_call = match->data;
+
+       if (match->data != sama5d3_restart) {
Using of_device_is_compatible seems more appropriate.

Also, why are you changing the order of this loop and the notifier
registration?
I moved this order because I use the match->data to compare whether is
sama5d3_restart. So I need to move this function (of_match_node) up.
Ah right, my bad.

Still, testing against the kernel pointer is not that great.

It would be great to use something explicit instead, like
of_device_is_compatible.

I agree. I will use of_device_is_compatible() in v2. And that can avoid the order change in the loop as well. Thanks.

Best Regards,
Josh Wu


Maxime


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to