Hi, On Wednesday 15 May 2013 01:25 PM, Lubomir Popov wrote: > Hi Sricharan, > > On 15/05/13 08:11, Sricharan R wrote: >> Hi, >> On Tuesday 14 May 2013 10:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:09:33PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Yeah, I can test it as well if you write it up, and may find the time if >>> you point me in the right direction. >>> >>>>>> 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. >>> OK, thanks. >>> >>>>> [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? >>> We don't need to use ifdefs since there's no conflicts, things are >>> either reserved in one case and used in the other. And we can make sure >>> we don't try and use the omap5 bits on omap4 and vice versa. I don't >>> see scrm in the first omap3 TRM I pulled up, so we don't need to worry >>> there. >>> >>>> 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 ;) ). >>> Yes, I'm OK starting off with moving things into omap_common.h as-is and >>> then updating them a bit later ala pcrm-regs.c. >>> >>> >> I am sorry for the very late response on this. >> Now then, why not add this register in to omap5_es2_prcm >> ??. That is how the TRM sees it as well.. Of course, this is cleanup >> stuff for OMAP4 panda as you pointed out.. > Yes, you are right in respect to fluent software integration and consistency > with current implementation. My only concern is that from architectural point > of view the SCRM, although related to the PRCM, is a separate module > (described > correspondingly as such in the TRM). If we go this way, the SCRM regs shall > have to be referenced via the prcm pointer: (*prcm)->xxxxx, and this might be > confusing. > > I'm OK to do it as above, that is, add the SCRM regs (for both OMAP4 and > OMAP5) > to the prcm_regs declaration in omap_common.h, and the required init to the > appropriate omap5_esx_prcm in prcm-regs.c, but would suggest that for improved > clarity the SCRM register names, as they now exist in .../arch-omap4/clocks.h, > start with a scrm_ prefix. > > Alternatively, a new scrm_regs struct could be declared in omap_common.h, > along > with the appropriate pointers, and the corresponding definitions/inits added > as > new structs in prcm-regs.c for every SoC. But then the file name prcm-regs > shall > be a bit confusing. > > What do you say? At this point , i think just adding only the registers that you need in to the prcm structure should be ok.
Regards, Sricharan _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
