On 07/11/2016 11:36 AM, Daniel Walker wrote: > On 07/08/2016 06:12 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 07/07/2016 06:48 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: >>> On 07/07/2016 03:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> On 07/07/2016 05:01 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: >>>>> On 07/07/2016 02:59 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>> On 07/07/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: >>>>>>> On 07/07/2016 02:23 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>>> I suspect that add the usage of cspr_ext into the driver would fix the >>>>>>>> issue we have. It reads like you would find that acceptable ? >>>>>>>> What specifically is the problem you're having? Is it that CSPR_EXT is >>>>>>>> not getting written to, and thus the device does not appear at the >>>>>>>> address that it should? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or is the driver matching incorrectly? The only way the driver's lack >>>>>>>> of using CSPR_EXT to match would be a problem would be if you have >>>>>>>> multiple chipselects with the same address in the lower 32 bits, and >>>>>>>> only CSPR_EXT distinguishing them. Since you proposed a device tree >>>>>>>> binding that assumes all devices have the same CSPR_EXT, I doubt that's >>>>>>>> the case, so I doubt adding CSPR_EXT matching to the driver will solve >>>>>>>> your problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't do the debug on this. From my perspective it's either flash >>>>>>> works, or it doesn't work. We need the code below for it to work, >>>>>> Adding CSPR_EXT matching to the driver will not accomplish the same >>>>>> thing as that code. >>>>>> >>>>> So from u-boot perspective, the values in the device tree under "ranges" >>>>> or parts of it, are place into the cspr and cspr_ext ? Is that how it's >>>>> suppose to work ? >>>> U-Boot writes values that are hardcoded in the board config header. >>>> These values (as well as the area covered by the IFC LAW) need to match >>>> the address in the device tree, but U-Boot doesn't get them from the >>>> device tree. >>>> >>> I was suggesting the values it writes are the same as the ones inside >>> the device tree. So we could have both csrp and csrp_ext written from >>> the driver and the values would >>> come from the ranges property. >> There's more to CSPR than just the address. The driver should either be >> able to assume that all of CSPR/CSOR has been correctly initialized, or >> it should assume none of that has been initialized -- which again, >> requires the attribute information to be in the device tree. If you're >> doing something in between, then that's a board quirk rather than a >> general solution. >> >> -Scott >> > > It would seems like a good idea to add it then. I think it can be piece > mail, rather than all or nothing tho. How difficult is adding the other > part to the driver , v.s. just the cspr_ext ?
Writing only cspr_ext is a hack to work around a bug and should not be disguised as a "piecemeal" implementation of something different. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
