On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 22:32 -0500, Liu Shengzhou-B36685 wrote:
> > > > There are other differences between t1023 an t1024. Where do you
> > > > describe t1024's QE? Where do you describe the DDR and IFC differences?
> > > > can they be detected at runtime? t1024 supports deep sleep, but
> > > > t1023 doesn't -- yet you label both chips as having t1024 rcpm.
> > > >
> > > As QE IP block has not been upstream yet,
> > Huh?
> > arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/
>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/qoriq-tdm1.0.dtsi has not been upstream by TDM
> owner.
> Ok, I will first send qoriq-tdm1.0.dtsi upstream in order to include QE in
> t1024 dts.
Thanks, but make sure there's also a binding for it.
> > > DDR and IFC differences are in u-boot, not in dts.
> > The differences are in hardware, which is what the dts is supposed to
> > describe.
>
> Theoretically I think so, but not all hardware details must be described in
> dts
No, but all hardware should be properly identified.
> as current IP driver doesn't take care of it from dts.
The device tree describes the hardware, not the driver.
> If so, IP owners will have to update drivers, for now let's keep as it's.
Please don't use the phrase "IP owner" in upstream discussions. Besides
being a bad name for "maintainer", SDK maintainership isn't relevant
here.
> > > Both t1023 and t1024 support sleep, so label both chips as having t1024
> > > rcpm.
> >
> > That's not how it works.
> >
> > > Only t1024 has deep sleep, the difference is identified in *.c not in dts
> > > (confirmed with deep sleep owner).
> >
> > Even if the C code chooses to use SVR to identify the difference (why?),
> > that doesn't mean it's OK for the device tree to contain wrong information.
>
> Where is the wrong information?
>
> rcpm: global-utilities@e2000 {
> compatible = "fsl,t1024-rcpm", "fsl,qoriq-rcpm-2.0";
> reg = <0xe2000 0x1000>;
> };
>
> sdhc@114000 {
> compatible = "fsl,t1024-esdhc", "fsl,esdhc";
> fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
> fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x530>; /* eSDHCLIODNR */
> sdhci,auto-cmd12;
> no-1-8-v;
> sleep = <&rcpm 0x00000080>;
> };
> t1023 also supports sleep(not deep sleep), it needs the info above.
The part that's wrong is where it says "t1024". It's not t1024 and for
rcpm it's not 100% compatible with t1024.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
