Hi Philipp, On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 13:57, Philipp Tomsich <philipp.toms...@theobroma-systems.com> wrote: > > 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> 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.
I assume it would come from the device tree. To me this seems like a reasonable design. Yes it would need per-chip DT settings, or perhaps driver data. But I believe we alreayd have a syscon_xxxx.c for each chip. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
