On Wednesday 15 May 2013 04:16 PM, Lubomir Popov wrote: > Hi Sricharan, > > On 15/05/13 12:04, Sricharan R wrote: >> 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. > OK, I just tend to add all registers, it shall be easier for later rework. Actually no :). When were are not using them no good in adding. Especially those SCRM registers very less we will use all of them in bootloader.
Regards, Sricharan _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
