On 04/11/2016 11:02 PM, Beniamino Galvani wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 02:08:56AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_0_EN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x0c)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_0_OUT GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x0d)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_0_IN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x0e)
>>
>> You can also define this as
>> GXBB_GPIO_EN(n) (0xc + 3 * (n) + 0)
>> GXBB_GPIO_OUT(n) (0xc + 3 * (n) + 1)
>> GXBB_GPIO_IN(n) (0xc + 3 * (n) + 2)
>
> This would work well if GPIO_6 didn't exist :)
Hrm, good point. You can probably special-case the gpio 6 with ternary
operator then .
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_1_EN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x0f)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_1_OUT GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x10)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_1_IN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x11)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_2_EN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x12)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_2_OUT GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x13)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_2_IN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x14)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_3_EN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x15)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_3_OUT GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x16)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_3_IN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x17)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_4_EN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x18)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_4_OUT GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x19)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_4_IN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x1a)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_5_EN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x1b)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_5_OUT GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x1c)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_5_IN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x1d)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_6_EN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x08)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_6_OUT GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x09)
>>> +#define GXBB_GPIO_6_IN GXBB_PERIPHS_ADDR(0x0a)
>
>> It'd be nice to have base addresses somewhere at the beginning instead
>> of having them mixed with the bit macros, but that's a matter of taste.
>
> I agree, I'll change this.
>
>>> + val = fdt_getprop(gd->fdt_blob, offset, "reg", &len);
>>> + if (len < sizeof(*val) * 4)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + /* Don't use fdt64_t to avoid unaligned access */
>>
>> This looks iffy, can you elaborate on this issue ?
>
> I was getting a "Synchronous Abort handler, esr 0x96000021" which
> seemed to indicate a alignment fault, but thinking again about it I'm
> not sure anymore of the real cause. fdt64_t and fdt64_to_cpu() don't
> work here, I will try to investigate better why. Suggestions are
> welcome :)
Toolchain issues ? Stack alignment issue ?
>>> + /* Reserve first 16 MiB of RAM */
>>
>> Why ?
>
> I'll add a comment, first 16 MiB seems to be reserved for firmware.
Thanks.
>>> +void reset_cpu(ulong addr)
>>> +{
>>
>> How does the system reboot then ?
>
> The system reboots through a call to secure monitor, which is not
> implemented in this submission.
Ha, either implement the call or add comment please.
>>> +struct mm_region *mem_map = gxbb_mem_map;
>>
>> This looks super-iffy, I wouldn't be surprised if this started being
>> optimized away at some point.
>
> I don't understand, why that should happen?
If you link the file alone, nothing references the symbols, so they can
be optimized away. But this is luckily not the case here.
>>> + /* Reset PHY on GPIOZ_14 */
>>> + clrbits_le32(GXBB_GPIO_3_EN, BIT(14));
>>> + clrbits_le32(GXBB_GPIO_3_OUT, BIT(14));
>>> + udelay(100000);
>>
>> mdelay(100); , though that is quite some wait.
>
> Will change and decrease the timeout.
>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/serial/serial_meson.c b/drivers/serial/serial_meson.c
>>
>> This should go in a separate patch.
>
> I originally submitted the driver as separate patch, then Tom
> suggested that the initial platform patch should contain everything
> needed to perform a boot, so UART, DDR, board file and DTS.
Meh, I politely disagree with Tom ;-)
> Thanks for the review,
>
> Beniamino
>
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
