Hi Tom, On 14/05/13 17:52, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:24:41PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> I'm currently busy with other work; on the other hand, careful >> rebasing shall require some time, especially the Palmas stuff. >> What would be the deadline for a V2 submission? >> >> Meanwhile could you please have a look at the (already old) >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/232743/? A simple patch, >> shall be needed if we enable USB (for the uEVM along with >> our board). In general, what are your plans regarding USB >> (.../patch/232742/)? > > Thanks for the reminder, I'll grab 232743 soon. 232742 looks OK, but do > you have a patch around for uEVM still? Not yet (didn't have the opportunity to test, although some uEVMs should be around at MMS). As you know, a patch shall be needed in the uEVM board file along with the common USB stuff. > >> And again on I2C (.../patch/233823/): what is you final >> opinion? I'm confident that this patch is a major improvement >> for OMAP4/5 at least. > > I'm inclined to go with it, just need to mentally unswap the i2c notes > in my brain and think it over one more time. Just applied 233823 to current u-boot-ti master. Works fine. > > [snip] >>>>>> + * TODO: Replace this ugly hardcoding with proper defines + >>>>>> */ + writel(0x0100, 0x4ae0a310); >>>>> >>>>> Again, do please. >>>> This should be (*scrm)->auxclk0. The problem is that the >>>> omap5_scrm_regs struct (holding the auxclk0 member) has to be >>>> defined somewhere in the common OMAP5 headers. Sricharan? Or should >>>> I hack around? >>> >>> Add it to the most likely struct in the headers. >> The entire struct (I call it omap5_scrm_regs in theory, similar to the >> corresponding omap4_scrm_regs for OMAP4) is not defined anywhere. Of >> course I could define only the member that I need, but I guess it is >> a (responsible) TI job to define hardware descriptors. Or I'm wrong? >> Please advise. If I have time, I could do it myself - it's some 27 >> registers, almost identical to the OMAP4, and should go into >> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-omap5/clocks.h. > > Whomever uses / needs it should do it. I gave the TRM a quick read and > I don't see any conflicts per-se just some reserved areas being named > and vice versa. So rename it to omap_scrm_regs and move to > <asm/omap_common.h>. Thanks! I would argue that this is not very appropriate. Those regs that are reserved on the OMAP5 are related to altclkscr and auxclk5 on the OMAP4; on the other hand the OMAP5 has some modem clock regs that are reserved on OMAP4. We shall probably have ugly #ifdefs again. And what about OMAP3 and below?
Currently the scrm struct is defined for OMAP4 in the asm/arch-omap4/clocks.h file and I have already done the same for OMAP5 by analogy. I must admit however that this approach does not correspond to the latest way by which groups of OMAP hardware regs are defined, prcm in particular - a struct in omap_common.h, holding only the required regs, no padding and such garbage, and an init with the physical addresses in a .c file for the particular SoC (prcm-regs.c). But still the Panda board, for example, uses the old way for scrm. Therefore I did it the same for OMAP5, which was easier (I'm old and lazy ;) ). Otherwise (a struct in omap_common.h) we shall need new scrm-regs.c files for every OMAP flavor. Which way to go? Regards, Lubo _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
