Re: [PATCH] i2c-ibm_iic: Enable driver for all PPC4xx variants in arch/powerpc
Hi Jean,
On Sunday 08 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > This patch enables the IBM I2C driver for all PPC4xx variants by adding
> > "ibm,iic" to the compatible list. This way all currently available
> > arch/powerpc 4xx ports can make use of this driver without any changes.
> > Additionally all "other" compatible entries are removed since they are
> > not needed anymore.
> >
> > Currently all 4xx PPC's have the same compatible I2C macro. If at some
> > time an incompatibility is detected we can take care of this with an
> > additional property.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ---
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c |6 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c
> > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c index 3a364a7..ed73801 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c
> > @@ -807,11 +807,7 @@ static int __devexit iic_remove(struct of_device
> > *ofdev) }
> >
> > static const struct of_device_id ibm_iic_match[] = {
> > - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-405ex", },
> > - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-405gp", },
> > - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-440gp", },
> > - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-440gpx", },
> > - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-440grx", },
> > + { .compatible = "ibm,iic", },
> > {}
> > };
>
> OK, I can take this in my tree, unless it depends on arch-specific
> patches which have not hit mainline yet.
No, this doesn't depend on other pathes.
> I guess this is 2.6.27
> material?
Yes. No real hurry here.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Stefan
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
zImage.chrp is getting gziped on Efika
gziping the image takes to long in development cycle, how do I turn it off? Efika is choking on it too. zImage starting: loaded at 0x0040 (sp: 0x017ff9e0) Allocating 0xc02a83dc bytes for kernel ... OF version = 'EFIKA5K2,1.3' gunzipping (0x <- 0x00407000:0x00838cf1)...,\]U ���ѥ���jj�4%%���*e�%%��j5% jԤ�J$$L^�040119C CTR 0x0070 CR 0x40002024 XER 0x0 DAR 0x DSISR 0x Type 2 GPR[] 0x0008 0x017FF950 0x 0x00839014 0x0004 0xC02929E8 0x0084356C 0x GPR[] 0x 0x 0x0070 0x0070 0x40002024 0xFFF7EFFF 0xF7F7BF7F 0x6FFAFF6E GPR[] 0x00431C36 0x0004 0xC02929E8 0x 0x 0xC0292977 0xF0001FFF 0xF02A GPR[] 0x00839014 0x004070BB 0x00431C36 0x 0x0006 0x00839044 0x0040E1E0 0xC02929E8 ibat0U 0x1FFF ibat0L 0x0012 ibat1U 0xF0001FFF ibat1L 0xF012 -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
SIR on MPC5200
Have anyone already written a device driver for PSC6 in SIR mode on the MPC5200? -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: Comments on device tree for pcm030
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not a compatible field in the top of the tree? Then you wouldn't
> need to list the boards in mpc5200_simple.c.
>compatible = "phytec,pcm030","simple-mpc5200";
Here's the problem; what does compatible really mean at the board
level? Does it mean the board has 100% of the same capabilities?
Does it mean that it uses the same chip? Does it mean that the chip
is configured in a particular way? It is really hard to define what a
compatible value means at the board level. The meaning of compatible
at the device level is very well defined, but that meaning does not
extend well to the board level.
Therefore, it is best to be conservative here and require a specific
list of supported boards in platform code.
Besides, it is really a Linux specific thing that is trying to be
described. In Linux, we've decided to support as many 5200 boards as
possible using the same platform code, but that may not be true, or it
may be a different set of boards, when a different OS is used. To
attempt to encode those decisions is overreaching the intent of using
the device tree.
>
> Device tree has an entry for AC97 on PSC1. I don't think the Phytec
> module or carrier board has AC97 hardware.
Might be a bug
> The RTC chip says pcf8563, phytec doc says it is a pcf8564.
Sounds like a bug
>
> There should be an i2c entry for the eeprom but I don't know the part
> number for it.
Yes, i2c devices should be described.
> What about the flash on the local bus? Could we use something like
> this, or the same without the partition data?
Yes, I believe there is code in place to support this.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>compatible = "fsl,lpb";
>ranges = <0 ff00 0100>;
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>compatible = "cfi-flash";
>reg = < 0100>;
>bank-width = <2>;
>#size-cells = <1>;
>#address-cells = <1>;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>label = "ubootl";
>reg = < 0004>;
>};
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>label = "kernel";
>reg = <0004 001c>;
>};
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>label = "jffs2";
>reg = <0020 00D0>;
>};
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>label = "uboot";
>reg = <00f0 0004>;
>};
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>label = "oftree";
>reg = <00f4 0004>;
>};
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>label = "space";
>reg = <00f8 0008>;
>};
>};
>};
Cheers,
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v2] [NAND] driver extension to support NAND on TQM85xx modules
I see. I think I should then also post the bindings (update of booting-without-of.txt) separately. Yes please. They are much easier to review that way (and they should be reviewed as a separate entity anyway). Segher ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Comments on device tree for pcm030
Why not a compatible field in the top of the tree? Then you wouldn't
need to list the boards in mpc5200_simple.c.
compatible = "phytec,pcm030","simple-mpc5200";
Device tree has an entry for AC97 on PSC1. I don't think the Phytec
module or carrier board has AC97 hardware.
The RTC chip says pcf8563, phytec doc says it is a pcf8564.
There should be an i2c entry for the eeprom but I don't know the part
number for it.
What about the flash on the local bus? Could we use something like
this, or the same without the partition data?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
compatible = "fsl,lpb";
ranges = <0 ff00 0100>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
compatible = "cfi-flash";
reg = < 0100>;
bank-width = <2>;
#size-cells = <1>;
#address-cells = <1>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
label = "ubootl";
reg = < 0004>;
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
label = "kernel";
reg = <0004 001c>;
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
label = "jffs2";
reg = <0020 00D0>;
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
label = "uboot";
reg = <00f0 0004>;
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
label = "oftree";
reg = <00f4 0004>;
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
label = "space";
reg = <00f8 0008>;
};
};
};
--
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v2] [NAND] driver extension to support NAND on TQM85xx modules
Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 09:01:41AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:50 +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> [NAND] driver extension to support NAND on TQM85xx modules >>> >>> This patch extends the FSL UPM NAND driver from Anton Vorontsov to >>> support NAND on the TQM85xx modules. Unfortunately, the hardware does >>> not support the R/B pins of the NAND chip and therefore the specified >>> maximum delay time must used. It therefore re-introduces the chip-delay >>> property. >>> >>> Note: this patch is based on various patches from Anton Vorontsov posted >>> to this list: >>> >>> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-April/055587.html. >> Do you also want me to apply that patch (on which this one depends)? >> It says 'Signed-off-by: not yet' ... > > Well, I have no objections to applying that patch, feel free to add my > sign off. But if OF people will NAK the bindings, I'll have to bother you > once again with the update to that driver. :-/ > > I've tried to push the bindings several times already, and always there > were [absolutely legitimate] issues. The last RFC is here (along with > other new bindings): > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-June/057244.html > > so far no comments.. Probably a good sign. :-) I see. I think I should then also post the bindings (update of booting-without-of.txt) separately. Wolfgang. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v2] [NAND] driver extension to support NAND on TQM85xx modules
David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:50 +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> [NAND] driver extension to support NAND on TQM85xx modules >> >> This patch extends the FSL UPM NAND driver from Anton Vorontsov to >> support NAND on the TQM85xx modules. Unfortunately, the hardware does >> not support the R/B pins of the NAND chip and therefore the specified >> maximum delay time must used. It therefore re-introduces the chip-delay >> property. >> >> Note: this patch is based on various patches from Anton Vorontsov posted >> to this list: >> >> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-April/055587.html. > > Do you also want me to apply that patch (on which this one depends)? > It says 'Signed-off-by: not yet' ... Anton has already answer that question. > You should probably comment on the removal of the OF_GPIO dependency. It > looks fine, since the relevant functions all get stubbed out and will do > the right thing, but it's worth a comment in the commit text. OK, will do so. Wolfgang. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: arch/ppc is going away Real Soon Now
On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 06:57:10PM +0400, Jochen Friedrich wrote: > Stefan Roese пишет: >> On Saturday 07 June 2008, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >> "Sean" == Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Sean> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:34:28 -0500 >>> >>> Sean> "Jon Loeliger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 13:19 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>> >> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > >>> >> > Becky Bruce wrote: >>> >> > > On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> >> > > > Olof Johansson wrote: >>> >> > > >> On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> >> > > >>> On Thursday 05 June 2008, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: >>> >> > > > "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> > > >> Paulus, Can we just kill all of arch/ppc for .27 right now? >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Acked-by: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > > Acked-by: Stephen Neuendorffer >>> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > > >>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > > >> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > > > Acked-by: Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > > Acked-by: Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > Acked-by: Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> Acked-by: Jon Loeliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > Acked-by: Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Acked-by: Peter Korsgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Acked-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Acked-by: Jochen Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: 4xx support in arch/ppc is going away Real Soon Now
> Grant Likely writes: > > > Oh, and we're going try to create the longest acked-by chain in > > Linux history. > > Cool :) > > Paul. So far, I think it looks like this, sorted: Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Jochen Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Jon Loeliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Peter Korsgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Stephen Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm not sure, but I _think_ there are a few other PowerPC developers out there still... :-) jdl ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: arch/ppc is going away Real Soon Now
Stefan Roese пишет: On Saturday 07 June 2008, Peter Korsgaard wrote: "Sean" == Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sean> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:34:28 -0500 Sean> "Jon Loeliger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 13:19 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> > Becky Bruce wrote: >> > > On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> > > > Olof Johansson wrote: >> > > >> On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > > >>> On Thursday 05 June 2008, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: >> > > > "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> Paulus, Can we just kill all of arch/ppc for .27 right now? >> > > > >> > > > Acked-by: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > Acked-by: Stephen Neuendorffer >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > >>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > >> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > Acked-by: Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > Acked-by: Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Acked-by: Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Acked-by: Jon Loeliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Acked-by: Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Peter Korsgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Jochen Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH] i2c-ibm_iic: Enable driver for all PPC4xx variants in arch/powerpc
Hi Stefan,
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:10:53 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> This patch enables the IBM I2C driver for all PPC4xx variants by adding
> "ibm,iic" to the compatible list. This way all currently available
> arch/powerpc 4xx ports can make use of this driver without any changes.
> Additionally all "other" compatible entries are removed since they are
> not needed anymore.
>
> Currently all 4xx PPC's have the same compatible I2C macro. If at some
> time an incompatibility is detected we can take care of this with an
> additional property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c |6 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c
> b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c
> index 3a364a7..ed73801 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c
> @@ -807,11 +807,7 @@ static int __devexit iic_remove(struct of_device *ofdev)
> }
>
> static const struct of_device_id ibm_iic_match[] = {
> - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-405ex", },
> - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-405gp", },
> - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-440gp", },
> - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-440gpx", },
> - { .compatible = "ibm,iic-440grx", },
> + { .compatible = "ibm,iic", },
> {}
> };
>
OK, I can take this in my tree, unless it depends on arch-specific
patches which have not hit mainline yet. I guess this is 2.6.27
material?
--
Jean Delvare
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
