Adam On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:25 PM, Adam Ford wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> wrote: >> On 2.3.2016 13:18, Adam Ford wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 2.3.2016 12:09, Adam Ford wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Mugunthan V N <mugunthan...@ti.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 03:03 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 02:55 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote: >>>>>>>>> With commit: d9a3bec682f9 "dm: ns16550: Add support for reg-offset >>>>>>>>> property" >>>>>>>>> reg_offset is added to the struct ns16550_platdata to be >>>>>>>>> dt compatible with Linux kernel driver, TI AM335x evms are broken >>>>>>>>> as the serial platdata updates wrong offsets. Correcting it with >>>>>>>>> initializing reg_offset to zero. >>>>>>> Acked-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be true for OMAP5+ platforms as well. I guess that array also >>>>>>> needs to be updated? >>>>>> >>>>>> Apart from AM335x, no other platform is converted to DM for non-dt boot, >>>>>> so there is no issues with other TI platforms. >>>>> >>>>> Due to the way the structure was changed, a bunch of omap3 boards >>>>> broke because they hard-coded the values expecting them in a certain >>>>> order in the structure. The patch has since been reverted. >>>> >>>> the patch was reverting just because we are close to release not because >>>> the patch is wrong. It will be added again in the merge window. >>>> That's why I am asking you to define your structure right with proper >>>> assignment or you will deal with this problem pretty soon again. >>>> The best all these patches should come to the tree before my patch. >>> >>> I wasn't trying to imply there was anything wrong with the patch. On >>> contrary, I was criticizing the hard-coded nature of how the omap3 >>> boards (and some others) defined it by expecting the data in a certain >>> order. I have submitted a patch to address (what I think are) all but >>> the am335x boards. Since there was already a patch submitted for >>> AM35x, so I didn't want to modify the AM335x again. >>> >>> I only mentioned the patch was being reverted because someone was >>> concerned about the OMAP5+ and I was trying to indicate that there is >>> some time to look into it. Sorry if I didn't come across correctly. >> >> no worries. I just wanted to make it clear because reverting patch is >> causing problem for microblaze with uart16550 but now it is better then >> break others. >> > > Hopefully those patches will get approved so we can get your patch > incorporated. Mugunthan - If you want, I can add your am355x board > to my patch or if you want you can review it and take what you need. >
You can add am335x uart fix also along with your patch. Regards Mugunthan V N _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
