Simon, > On 29.11.2018, at 19:43, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Kever, > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 18:10, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com > <mailto:kever.y...@rock-chips.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Philipp, >> >> >> On 11/28/2018 05:07 PM, Philipp Tomsich wrote: >>> Kever, >>> >>>> On 28.11.2018, at 03:04, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Use ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG instead of grf structure so that >>>> we can re-use the source code later. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> >>> NAK, as there are still pending changes. >> Yes, I got that, and I send out my comments on your comments with no >> more response. >>> See below for the reminder, in case this got lost. >>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig | 1 + >>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3128-board.c | 5 +---- >>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig >>>> b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig >>>> index 145d96b1f0..94a03e2a38 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig >>>> @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ config TPL_ROCKCHIP_BACK_TO_BROM >>>> config ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG >>>> hex "Rockchip boot mode flag register address" >>>> default 0x200081c8 if ROCKCHIP_RK3036 >>>> + default 0x100a0038 if ROCKCHIP_RK3128 >>>> default 0x20004040 if ROCKCHIP_RK3188 >>>> default 0x110005c8 if ROCKCHIP_RK322X >>>> default 0xff730094 if ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>> As previously discussed: these should all go into header files, as they are >>> not user-configurable. >>> This affects multiple patch series (as I requested the same for the STIMER >>> address). >> I believe you mention about this: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/891462/ >> Now the model in u-boot rockchip channel is: >> - People send out patches to mailing list; >> - The patch get an ACK patch and review patch may request for change in >> 1 week~4 months; >> - According to the maintainer's comment, people reply for why the patch >> like this, >> and maybe the patch do not need to change just like what the >> maintainer want. >> - BUT, there will never be more reply/comments. >> - Then, people have to resend the patches they think it may be >> reasonable, and maintainer >> then complain people doesn't address his comment. >> >> For this patch, I think: >> - This is not an first patch for this operation, this just make rk3128 >> work like other SoCs, it's not a new feature; >> - This kind of default value setting is all over the U-Boot project, I'm >> not say it's correct, >> but it's a good solution and convenient for us to use the same object >> with different value in different SoCs, >> It's much better to separate them into more then 10 header files or >> lots of "#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIIP_RK3128" >> in one header files. >> >> I hope I can get reply for this mail this time. >> >> Hi Simon, >> Could you help to comment on this? > > What happens if the user changes the value? > > Can this go in the device tree? > > It seems like this should be in a driver, to me. We have a SYSCON > driver for GRF. Should we add an ioctl-type interface to it?
This affects a number of settings by now, including the addresses for the debug UARTs, secure timer base addresses and the boot-mode register. What we’d really need would be a “read/write named-register” operation (which could either be an ioctl or a new read/write operation that takes a selector that can then internally be mapped onto an actual address). However, this would require a custom syscon for each chip (or at least a per-chip driver-data), which also doesn’t sound like a desirable design. Thanks, Philipp. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
