> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swar...@wwwdotorg.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 10:11 AM
> To: Tom Warren
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Stephen Warren; Tom Warren
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] ARM: Tegra210: Add SoC code/include files
> for T210
>
> On 06/03/2015 02:35 PM, Tom Warren wrote:
> > All based off of Tegra124. As a Tegra210 board is brought up, these
> > may change a bit to match the HW more closely, but probably 90% of
> > this is identical to T124.
>
> Rather than duplicating lots of headers and code, can we share the content
> with other chips?
Sure, but I wasn't looking at this patchset as a reworking of all Tegra common
headers, but an inclusion of T210 support. We can then move to common/shared
content after this is in, or someone (you?) can do it now before I add T210
support, but that'll delay it.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/funcmux.h
> > b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/funcmux.h
>
> We should be able to drop funcmux support completely now that we're
> programming entire board pinmux tables.
I'll look into it, but I believe funcmux is only used to get early UART muxes
set, which is done before the pinmux table is parsed/written.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/gpio.h
> > b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/gpio.h
>
> > +enum gpio_pin {
> > + GPIO_PA0 = 0, /* pin 0 */
> > + GPIO_PA1,
>
> Given the move to DT, are any of these GPIO_xxx values actually used? I
> wonder how many other types/defines in the other files are actually used,
> rather than simply left over from times gone by.
Again, that's more of a general Tegra cleanup phase then this patchset is
intended for. I'll take a quick look, but I don't want to get delayed by doing
a bunch of Tegra cleanup stuff right now.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/hardware.h
> > b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/hardware.h
>
> Can we drop this file? I don't see a hardware.h in any of the other
> arch-tegra*/
> directories.
Sure. It's never been used AFAICT.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/tegra.h
> > b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra210/tegra.h
>
> > +#define BCT_ODMDATA_OFFSET 1704 /* offset to ODMDATA word */
> > +
> > +#undef NVBOOTINFOTABLE_BCTSIZE
> > +#undef NVBOOTINFOTABLE_BCTPTR
> > +#define NVBOOTINFOTABLE_BCTSIZE 0x48 /* BCT size in BIT in
> IRAM */
> > +#define NVBOOTINFOTABLE_BCTPTR 0x4C /* BCT pointer in BIT in
> IRAM */
>
> Have you validated those? I'm pretty sure the BCT and perhaps BIT layout
> changed in T210, and those values match T124.
Good point. They have changed, since the BCT structure has changed. I'll update
them w/real T210 offsets.
>
> Have all the clock tables and IDs been updated to match T210? If not, I think
> we
> should do that before checking in the code, or it'll be misleading.
I believe so - I'm using the clock tables from my 'fully working' branch, so
they should be accurate/jibe with the TRM, but I'll double-check.
--
nvpublic
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
