On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:21:59PM -0700, Tom Warren wrote: > Thierry/Lucas, > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:56:33AM -0700, Tom Warren wrote: > >> Lucas, > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Lucas Stach <d...@lynxeye.de> wrote: > >> > Hi Tom, > >> > > >> > Am Montag, den 11.02.2013, 10:17 -0700 schrieb Tom Warren: > >> >> Linux dts files were used for those boards that didn't already > >> >> have sdhci info populated. Tamonten has their own dtsi file with > >> >> common sdhci nodes (sourced from Linux). > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twar...@nvidia.com> > >> >> --- > >> >> v2: > >> >> - cleanup comments in dts files/match w/kernel files > >> >> - add sdhci aliases in all dts files > >> >> - use tegra20-tamonten.dtsi from the kernel for AD boards > >> >> > >> >> arch/arm/dts/tegra20-tamonten.dtsi | 489 > >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > > >> > I'm not sure if pushing the whole file in this patch is the right thing > >> > to do. > >> > >> I didn't want to edit it since we seem to be moving towards using the > >> Linux DTS files in toto in U-Boot (as per Stephen & Simon). Does it do > >> any harm to have the whole thing here? Saves some work later. Thierry > >> - what do you think? > > > > Given that it isn't used anywhere I don't think we really need it right > > now. We can always add it later when we can make better use of it. > > It actually is used (for SDMMC/sdhci) now, Thierry. That's why it's in > this patchset.
Right, I hadn't looked at that patch yet. > I had originally put the sdhci node for Avionic Design > boards in their respective .dts files, but Stephen pointed out that > the kernel had a tegra20-tamonten.dtsi file with common info, which > included the sdhci node, and asked that I use it, instead, so we echo > the kernel layout. So I pulled that file into my MMC DT patchset, and > used it in all AD board builds (medcom/tec/plutux) - it's pulled in > via an override of CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE in the config files. > > So the options seem to be: > > a) Don't use the tamonton dtsi file, and put the sdhci nodes in the AD > dts files, just like all other boards (this was my V1 approach). > Vetoed by Stephen. > b) Use tegra20-tamonten.dtsi as is, identical to the kernel file. If > necessary, I can move it's inclusion to a separate patch, independent > of the MMC DT patchset, as suggested by Lucas. > c) Use tegra20-tamonten.dtsi, but just with the sdhci node (is this > what you're suggesting, Thierry?). I'd still pull it in via a > CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE #define in the AD config files. > > Let me know ASAP - I'd like to get V3 upstreamed soon so I can move on > to work on the T30/T114 MMC patches. I think option b) sounds fine given that we want to move to the same DTS as the kernel eventually anyway. So for the Tamonten (and AD board) pieces, consider this: Acked-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> I can't give you a Tested-by because I have a bunch of other things to take care of and I probably won't get to testing this for a few days. Thierry
pgp6THyCMM5ik.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot