On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:06:52AM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: > Hi, Maxime > > On 7/9/2015 8:03 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 06:15:46PM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: > >>As since sama5d3, to reset the chip, we don't need to shutdown the ddr > >>controller. > >> > >>So add a new compatible string and new restart function for sama5d3 and > >>later chips. As we don't use sama5d3 ddr controller, so remove it as > >>well. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh...@atmel.com> > >>Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.fe...@atmel.com> > >>--- > >> > >> drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- > >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >>b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >>index 36dc52f..8944b63 100644 > >>--- a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >>+++ b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >>@@ -123,6 +123,14 @@ static int at91sam9g45_restart(struct notifier_block > >>*this, unsigned long mode, > >> return NOTIFY_DONE; > >> } > >>+static int sama5d3_restart(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long mode, > >>+ void *cmd) > >>+{ > >>+ writel(cpu_to_le32(AT91_RSTC_KEY | AT91_RSTC_PERRST | > >>AT91_RSTC_PROCRST), > >>+ at91_rstc_base); > >>+ return NOTIFY_DONE; > >>+} > >>+ > >> static void __init at91_reset_status(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> { > >> u32 reg = readl(at91_rstc_base + AT91_RSTC_SR); > >>@@ -155,13 +163,13 @@ static void __init at91_reset_status(struct > >>platform_device *pdev) > >> static const struct of_device_id at91_ramc_of_match[] = { > >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc", }, > >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc", }, > >>- { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-ddramc", }, > >> { /* sentinel */ } > >> }; > >> static const struct of_device_id at91_reset_of_match[] = { > >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-rstc", .data = at91sam9260_restart }, > >> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-rstc", .data = at91sam9g45_restart }, > >>+ { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-rstc", .data = sama5d3_restart }, > >> { /* sentinel */ } > >> }; > >>@@ -181,17 +189,21 @@ static int at91_reset_of_probe(struct platform_device > >>*pdev) > >> return -ENODEV; > >> } > >>- for_each_matching_node(np, at91_ramc_of_match) { > >>- at91_ramc_base[idx] = of_iomap(np, 0); > >>- if (!at91_ramc_base[idx]) { > >>- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Could not map ram controller > >>address\n"); > >>- return -ENODEV; > >>+ match = of_match_node(at91_reset_of_match, pdev->dev.of_node); > >>+ at91_restart_nb.notifier_call = match->data; > >>+ > >>+ if (match->data != sama5d3_restart) { > >Using of_device_is_compatible seems more appropriate. > > > >Also, why are you changing the order of this loop and the notifier > >registration? > > I moved this order because I use the match->data to compare whether is > sama5d3_restart. So I need to move this function (of_match_node) up.
Ah right, my bad. Still, testing against the kernel pointer is not that great. It would be great to use something explicit instead, like of_device_is_compatible. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature