On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 04:35:09PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Jagan Teki <ja...@amarulasolutions.com> > wrote: > > Enabling DM_MMC is not straight forward for Allwinner SoC's to > > make proper compatibility in mmc driver vs DT nodes. > > > > Existing dm code for ahb gate clock will be suitable to handle > > sun4i,5i,6i and 7i U-Boot specific mmc dt nodes, which are different > > from Linux in terms of clocks phandle notation. > > > > U-Boot DT clocks phandle follow direct ahb and clock address on > > node definition with specific bit position, but Linux clocks phandle > > follow macros to define AHB and MMC clocks so-that the ccu driver > > will set the bits accordingly. > > And that has been deprecated upstream. > > > Clocks phandle notations in U-Boot for higher Allwinner SoC start > > from sun8i, sun50i are following Linux notation so-that both Linux > > and U-Boot can have common node definition. > > So basically you're saying the additional code for clock/reset > handling through the device tree only works for half of the SoCs, > based on a deprecated device tree binding. Which means we're > going to throw it out some time in the future. Is it worth the > churn of driver and device tree changes? > > IMHO the new clock handling code is no better than the old. The only > thing that has changed is how the clock register address is derived. > Not even the index numbers, which BTW are actual bit offsets, for > the AHB gates from the device tree are used. Neither is the device > tree used for the AHB resets.
I'd say that it's even worse. We want an actual, common, clock driver. Not a quick hack that doesn't solve any of the issues we're facing. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
