On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Tom Rini, > > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:16:45AM -0700, Tom Warren wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:21:18AM -0700, Tom Warren wrote: > > > > > Marek, > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:47 PM > > > > > > To: Jim Lin > > > > > > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Tom Warren; Stephen Warren > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: Tegra: USB: Add driver support for > > > > > > Tegra30/Tegra114 > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jim Lin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tegra30 and Tegra114 are compatible except 1. T30 takes 55 ms > to > > > > > > > finish Port Reset. T114 takes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 50 ms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. PLL parameters > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested on Tegra20 Harmony/Seaboard, Tegra30 Cardhu, and > Tegra114 > > > > > > > Dalmore platforms. All works well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jim Lin <ji...@nvidia.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra/clk_rst.h | 10 + > > > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra/usb.h | 249 > > > > > > > ------------------ arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra114/tegra.h > | > > > > > > > 1 + > > > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra114/usb.h | 287 > > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra20/usb.h | 279 > > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra30/usb.h | 294 > > > > > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we now have three copies of the same stuff ? > > > > > > > > > > When only T20 was supported (for USB), there was a common > > > > > (arch-tegra/usb.h) header. That's been moved to arch-tegra20/usb.h, > > > > > and (unfortunately) there are 2 new usb.h files due to the HW > > > > > differences in the registers between T20 and T30/T114. I don't see > > > > > any easy way to have a common usb.h file for Tegra w/o adding ugly > > > > > #ifdefs to the USB register space struct(s). > > > > > > > > Just how different are they? Are all of the related defines and > masks > > > > different too? Do we have conflicts? Moved registers? Just > > > > conflicting values? A quick peek shows '30' and '114' are pretty > > > > similar, except for masks. Maybe splitting the struct up so you can > > > > discard some of the reserved gaps, run-time checking to see if we can > > > > or cannot use a particular part of the struct? > > > > > > This is really Jim's patchset (and his specialty), but here's what I > know > > > about Tegra USB regs: > > > > > > T20 had a gap in the registers @ offset 0x130. T30 (and T114) moved the > > > offset of the command/status/interrupt regs down to fill in this gap, > > > which dragged all the subsequent registers back 16 bytes. The two SoCs > > > 'families' sync up again at offset 0x400 and are pretty much equal from > > > there on out to 0x840. > > > > > > The defines are probably 90% the same, with some weirdness for the > first > > > USB controller (USB1) and its PTS/STS bits that differs in offset from > > > the other 2 controllers (again, no clue why the HW guys would do this). > > > > > > So we could have the 3 different USB headers in the arch-tegraXX area > > > contain the register structs, and have a common arch-tegra/usb.h that > has > > > the #defines that are the same, and is included in the > arch-tegraxx/usb.h > > > files. That would reduce this down somewhat, without the ugliness of > > > #ifdefs in the structs. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Sounds like the best we can do then. It's probable that trying to > > define USB_REGMAP_GAPSIZE1/2 or whatever to do it on the fly would just > > be uglier still. Thanks! > > This is a problem with the struct-based access indeed. I agree with Tom > it'd be > worth to at least try distilling the common part into header shared between > those three CPUs. > > btw you're also adding some kernel-doc-alike annotations to functions, why > don't > you follow kerneldoc style altogether? >
I'll let Jim answer that. > > Best regards, > Marek Vasut >
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
