Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:31:45PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
+ local...@ffe05000 {
+ #address-cells = 2;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ compatible = fsl,elbc, simple-bus;
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should
indicate that here.
+ reg = 0 0xffe0 0 0x1000; // CCSRBAR soc regs, remove
once parse code for immrbase fixed
The immrbase code was fixed a long time ago -- this can go away.
+static int __init p2020_ds_probe(void)
+{
+ unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
+
+ if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, fsl,P2020DS)) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
+ primary_phb_addr = 0x9000;
+#endif
+ return 1;
+ } else {
+ return 0;
+ }
+}
Unnecessary else.
-Scott
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:31:45PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
+ local...@ffe05000 {
+ #address-cells = 2;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ compatible = fsl,elbc, simple-bus;
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should
indicate that here.
that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that.
+ reg = 0 0xffe0 0 0x1000; // CCSRBAR soc regs, remove
once parse code for immrbase fixed
The immrbase code was fixed a long time ago -- this can go away.
will remove
+static int __init p2020_ds_probe(void)
+{
+ unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
+
+ if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, fsl,P2020DS)) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
+ primary_phb_addr = 0x9000;
+#endif
+ return 1;
+ } else {
+ return 0;
+ }
+}
Unnecessary else.
will fix this and the 2 other cases it shows up on.
- k
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
Kumar Gala wrote: If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should indicate that here. that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that. Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block version register. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should indicate that here. that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that. Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block version register. But there might be a p2020 w/a newer eLBC version in the future. - k ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
Kumar Gala wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should indicate that here. that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that. Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block version register. But there might be a p2020 w/a newer eLBC version in the future. At which point we can add something to u-boot -- but magic SVR tables seem a step backward from the dts except where needed to avoid the creation of extra dts files. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should indicate that here. that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that. Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block version register. But there might be a p2020 w/a newer eLBC version in the future. At which point we can add something to u-boot -- but magic SVR tables seem a step backward from the dts except where needed to avoid the creation of extra dts files. I don't see the value of complicating u-boot to have to parse and fixup the compatible instead of just having to prepend to it. Especially since I don't believe there is anything specific we care about in the 1.2 version of elbc at this point. - k ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
Kumar Gala wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should indicate that here. that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that. Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block version register. But there might be a p2020 w/a newer eLBC version in the future. At which point we can add something to u-boot -- but magic SVR tables seem a step backward from the dts except where needed to avoid the creation of extra dts files. I don't see the value of complicating u-boot But complicating u-boot is just what you're suggesting. Put it in the dts, and u-boot has *zero* code to deal with this unless we find ourselves wanting to share the dts with another board rev with a newer chip with a newer elbc. to have to parse and fixup the compatible instead of just having to prepend to it. Especially since I don't believe there is anything specific we care about in the 1.2 version of elbc at this point. If the new elbc is compatible with the current one, then you will still just be prepending. If it is not, then it very likely isn't compatible with 1.0 either, so you'll have to remove fsl,elbc anyway. What we care about at this point is irrelevant, given the PITA it would be to change the device trees (or u-boot) that are already in use once we do begin to care. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should indicate that here. that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that. Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block version register. But there might be a p2020 w/a newer eLBC version in the future. At which point we can add something to u-boot -- but magic SVR tables seem a step backward from the dts except where needed to avoid the creation of extra dts files. I don't see the value of complicating u-boot But complicating u-boot is just what you're suggesting. Put it in the dts, and u-boot has *zero* code to deal with this unless we find ourselves wanting to share the dts with another board rev with a newer chip with a newer elbc. to have to parse and fixup the compatible instead of just having to prepend to it. Especially since I don't believe there is anything specific we care about in the 1.2 version of elbc at this point. If the new elbc is compatible with the current one, then you will still just be prepending. If it is not, then it very likely isn't compatible with 1.0 either, so you'll have to remove fsl,elbc anyway. What we care about at this point is irrelevant, given the PITA it would be to change the device trees (or u-boot) that are already in use once we do begin to care. Which is exactly why I didn't put it in the .dts right now. Today we know NO code exists that cares about fsl,elbc-1.2. Once someone adds such code they can also update the .dts to match it. - k ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: What we care about at this point is irrelevant, given the PITA it would be to change the device trees (or u-boot) that are already in use once we do begin to care. Which is exactly why I didn't put it in the .dts right now. ??? Today we know NO code exists that cares about fsl,elbc-1.2. Once someone adds such code they can also update the .dts to match it. DTS files and firmware are *MUCH* harder to update once they're out there than the kernel. Why such opposition to using an appropriate compatible? Because I want to avoid make the decision right now. We are on rev1.x silicon and I want to avoid greatly having to spawn a new .dts just for fsl,elbc-1.2.1 that has some errata fix in it. If dtc was smarter and I had less duplication between the 40-50 .dts we have for our various parts I wouldn't care that match. Is there anything in the p2020ds u-boot patches to set the elbc version, or was that just a brush-off? I was hoping that Poonam would look at doing that, but there isn't anything right now. I can put out some code for u-boot to address the specific elbc issue if that will resolve this. - k ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
RE: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: Add P2020DS board support
+ L2: l2-cache-control...@2 {
+ compatible = fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller;
+ reg = 0x2 0x1000;
+ cache-line-size = 32; // 32 bytes
+ cache-size = 0x10; // L2, 1M
+ interrupt-parent = mpic;
+ interrupts = 16 2;
+ };
One nit --here should be 512KB L2 cache
+ u...@22000 {
+ #address-cells = 1;
+ #size-cells = 0;
+ compatible = fsl-usb2-mph;
+ reg = 0x22000 0x1000;
+ interrupt-parent = mpic;
+ interrupts = 28 0x2;
+ phy_type = ulpi;
+ };
It should be fsl-usb2-dr
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
