On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 04:55, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vladimir, > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:39 PM Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 23:46, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:53 PM Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Now that we have added driver model support to the TSEC driver, > > > > convert ls1021atwr board to use it. > > > > > > > > This depends on previous DM series for ls1021atwr: > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/561855/ > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > > > > > > Generally looks good, but a few nits below... > > > > > > Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> > > > > > > > [Vladimir] Made the following changes: > > > > - Added 'status = "disabled";' for all Ethernet ports in ls1021a.dtsi > > > > - Fixed the confusion between the SGMII/TBI PCS for enet0 and enet1 - > > > > a mistake ported over from Linux. Each SGMII PCS lies on the private > > > > MDIO bus of the interface (and the RGMII enet2 has no SGMII PCS). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c | 2 +- > > > > arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c | 10 ++++++++ > > > > arch/arm/dts/ls1021a-twr.dtsi | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > arch/arm/dts/ls1021a.dtsi | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > board/freescale/ls1021atwr/ls1021atwr.c | 2 +- > > > > configs/ls1021atwr_nor_defconfig | 1 + > > > > configs/ls1021atwr_nor_lpuart_defconfig | 1 + > > > > include/configs/ls1021atwr.h | 4 ++++ > > > > 8 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c > > > > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c > > > > index ecf9e869855e..9ccfe1042ce5 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c > > > > @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ int cpu_mmc_init(bd_t *bis) > > > > > > > > int cpu_eth_init(bd_t *bis) > > > > { > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_TSEC_ENET > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_TSEC_ENET) && !defined(CONFIG_DM_ETH) > > > > tsec_standard_init(bis); > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c > > > > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c > > > > index 8bf9c42b2260..90cf7958f257 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c > > > > @@ -16,12 +16,17 @@ > > > > #include <tsec.h> > > > > #include <asm/arch/immap_ls102xa.h> > > > > #include <fsl_sec.h> > > > > +#include <dm.h> > > > > > > > > DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > > > > > > > > void ft_fixup_enet_phy_connect_type(void *fdt) > > > > { > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH > > > > > > Please use positive logic where convenient. I.e. #ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH > > > and swap cases. > > > > > > > To be honest I don't know why keep compatibility with non-DM ETH at > > all for the TWR board. On the LS1021A-TSN I'm not doing that. > > Bin, is there any particular reason? If not, I'll just completely > > remove your #ifdef's for v2. > > I remember at that time there were some PowerPC 83xx/85xx boards that > were not converted to DM but still used TSEC driver. If this is not a > concern now, I am all for it to remove the non-DM TSEC support. >
For the TSEC driver code, sure, there are still non-DM users out there and we're still keeping them for now. I was talking about the board code for LS1021A-TWR when I replied to Joe. > Regards, > Bin Thanks, -Vladimir _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
