On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:34:46PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 15:58, Scott Wood wrote: > > Please maintain backward compatibility with older device trees (by > > checking the length of the second reg resource). At the very least, > > update the device trees that are affected. > > I haven't seen any CPM2-based board using SMC ports in the device trees > available in arch/powerpc/boot/dts.
ep8248e > Should I still maintain compatibility with older device trees ? Is there any > out-of-tree PQ2 boards using udbg and SMC ? Yes, I've answered questions on the lists from at least one person using a custom board with cpm2 smc. > What about printing a warning if the second reg resource has the wrong > size ? The only way you'll see the warning is if udbg is enabled. :-P Will a CPM reset blow away the portion of muram that holds the SMC pram pointer? If not (and I don't think it will), just return the device tree reg resource as is currently done if the resource is the wrong size. > > After this point, even if you don't reset the CPM, udbg printk is broken > > because you moved pram. The udbg disabling will have to be moved before > > this. > > Moving the SMC pram doesn't break udbg printk in itself. What will break it > is > moving the TX BDs, but the end result is the same, moving pram will result in > udbg being broken. > > The cpm_uart driver disable udbg before allocating the new BDs. What about > moving that right before moving the parameter RAM ? cpm_uart_request_port(), > which is called in between, already disables RX and TX on the port, so we > won't loose any debug message. cpm_uart_request_port() returns without doing that if it's a console port. I think the current placement of the udbg disable will be fine. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
