Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] imx: Define common routines to set cpu and board environment variables

2013-11-16 Thread Fabio Estevam
Hi Eric,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Eric Nelson
 wrote:

> I'm just hoping to get a trivial amount of machinery so a boot
> script can figure out which of a set of DTBs to load:
>
> imx6q-nitrogen6x.dtb,
> imx6dl-nitrogen6x.dtb, or
> imx6s-nitrogen6x.dtb

imx6dl-nitrogen6x.dtb should cover both dl and solo variants, so no
need for a imx6s-nitrogen6x.dtb version.

Regards,

Fabio Estevam
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot


Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] imx: Define common routines to set cpu and board environment variables

2013-11-16 Thread Eric Nelson

Thanks Tom,

On 11/15/2013 12:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:30:12AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:

Hi Eric,


Thanks Marek,

On 11/14/2013 02:22 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:

Dear Eric Nelson,

+Albert, Tom


These can be used in bootcmd to produce DTB file names.

set_board_env() allows over-ride for use when a developing custom
DTB files.

Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson 
---
V2 adds void to the function declarations and definitions and adds
a blank to keep checkpatch clean.

I'm feeling like I missed something here. Routines in imx-common/cpu.c
are shared between various i.MX processors, but there doesn't appear
to be a common header file.

It seems that arch/arm/include/asm/imx-common.h should be present
but isn't. Am I missing something?

I also think there should be a way we could pull this into multiple
boards without adding a full-up board_late_init() function into
each board file, but tracing the init sequence, I'm not seeing an
architecture-specific spot after env_init.

   arch/arm/imx-common/cpu.c | 15 +--
   arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/sys_proto.h |  9 +
   2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/imx-common/cpu.c b/arch/arm/imx-common/cpu.c
index 0cd2538..4214946 100644
--- a/arch/arm/imx-common/cpu.c
+++ b/arch/arm/imx-common/cpu.c
@@ -99,8 +99,6 @@ unsigned imx_ddr_size(void)

   }
   #endif

-#if defined(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO)
-

   const char *get_imx_type(u32 imxtype)
   {

switch (imxtype) {

@@ -121,6 +119,19 @@ const char *get_imx_type(u32 imxtype)

}

   }

+void __weak set_cpu_env(void)
+{
+   setenv("cpu", get_imx_type(cpu_type(get_cpu_rev(;
+}


I'd say we should have a U-Boot wide thing here + CPU-specific overrides
where applicable.


I'll follow your lead on this.


I'd wait for Tom's/Albert's opinion on this one too btw.


So, CONFIG_ENV_VARS_UBOOT_CONFIG says that these variables are
_build_time_.  If you want to whack their values, update the README on
CONFIG_ENV_VARS_UBOOT_RUNTIME_CONFIG to say so.  Having the i.MX code
that updates this at run-time is fine to live in the i.MX code area.


I wasn't aware of these two options, and they seem useful.

They also suggest that using "cpu" and "board" are probably wrong,
since CONFIG_SYS_CPU and environment "cpu" are already set to "armv7"
and "board" is configured with the build-time board name.

Overriding "board_name" seems to be in-line with the README if
we can just figure out the right spot for initialization.

Some other variable ("cpu_name" or "imx_type" perhaps?) should probably
be used for the CPU variant.

Chasing down how "board_name" is initialized in get_board_revision()
leads me to arch_misc_init() is the right place for this on i.MX,
since it's called after the environment is initialized.


[snip]

This could be even easier on i.MX6 if we had more formalized (and
lower-case) strings returned by get_imx_type(), but I wanted this
to be very small.

I'm not sure how consistent the DTB naming is for other machines
or if there's always the equivalent of get_imx_type().


In the worst-case scenario, you might end up with some mapping
function full of strcmp()s ;-)


Note that in TI-land we do this with 'findfdt' in the environment and
yes, some string compares.  But we set board_name in C so that we can do
what we need to, to determine the board.  Maybe something like that
would help here?


Thanks. That does help.

Regards,


Eric
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot


Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] imx: Define common routines to set cpu and board environment variables

2013-11-16 Thread Eric Nelson

On 11/16/2013 07:03 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:

Hi Eric,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Eric Nelson
 wrote:


I'm just hoping to get a trivial amount of machinery so a boot
script can figure out which of a set of DTBs to load:

 imx6q-nitrogen6x.dtb,
 imx6dl-nitrogen6x.dtb, or
 imx6s-nitrogen6x.dtb


imx6dl-nitrogen6x.dtb should cover both dl and solo variants, so no
need for a imx6s-nitrogen6x.dtb version.



Thanks Fabio.

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot


Re: [U-Boot] [Patch v2 1/5] Driver/DDR: Moving Freescale DDR driver to a common driver

2013-11-16 Thread york sun

On Nov 16, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:30 PM, York Sun  wrote:
>> Freescale DDR driver has been used for mpc83xx, mpc85xx, mpc86xx SoCs.
>> This patch moves the driver to a common driver. The similar DDR controller
>> will be use for ARM-based SoCs.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> This patch also combines ccsr_ddr
>> structure into one header file.
> 
> This could be split in another patch? This makes review easier.

OK. Let me try again.

York


___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot


Re: [U-Boot] u-boot gerrit server

2013-11-16 Thread Michal Suchanek
On 16 November 2013 00:20, Wolfgang Denk  wrote:
> Dear Michal,
>
> In message 
>  you 
> wrote:
>>
>> You need patch(1) to generate a patch and subscribe to mailing list to post 
>> it.
>
> No.  You can send mail even if not subscribed.  The mail will be
> moderated then, but usually this is just a minor delay - typically
> less than an hour before it shows up on the mailing list.
>
>> To upload to gerrit you need git and subscribe to gerrit.
>
> You have to register a google account.  You have to accept google
> terms & conditions.
>
>> Two things one way or the other.
>
> Maybe - but things of pretty different weight.
>

Indeed, if adopting gerrit means giving up control over user
authorization and ToS that's quite some weight.

Thanks

Michal
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot