Thierry, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:41:09AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 07:51:55AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: >> > 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. >> >> So it turned out that I need to touch U-Boot anyway, so I decided to >> give this a spin. I noticed that overriding CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE from >> the board configuration file doesn't work currently. What happens is >> that the autoconf.mk (which is derived from the board configuration) is >> included before the CPU config.mk which sets CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE to >> tegra20 (or tegra30, tegra114). I came up with the attached patch to set >> the variable if not set previously (by the board configuration file). >> >> Feel free to squash that in your patch series if you deem it a proper >> solution. I can also provide a proper separate patch if you prefer. >> >> Thierry > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk >> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk >> index cb1a19d..e7c22c0 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk >> @@ -16,4 +16,4 @@ >> # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License >> # along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. >> # >> -CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE := tegra114 >> +CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE ?= tegra114 >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk >> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk >> index 6432e75..9042664 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk >> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@ >> # Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, >> # MA 02111-1307 USA >> # >> -CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE := tegra20 >> +CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE ?= tegra20 >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk >> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk >> index 719ca81..0035bc5 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk >> @@ -16,4 +16,4 @@ >> # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License >> # along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. >> # >> -CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE := tegra30 >> +CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE ?= tegra30 > > I forgot: with that patch applied: > > Tested-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> > > Thierry Thanks for the patch - I never would have seen that, since it all built OK w/MAKEALL.
Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot