On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:20 PM Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am Fr., 21. Dez. 2018, 22:16 hat Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> geschrieben: >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 14:32, Simon Goldschmidt >> <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Am 20.12.2018 um 21:53 schrieb Simon Goldschmidt: >> > > Am 20.12.2018 um 18:37 schrieb Simon Glass: >> > >> Hi Simon, >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 08:03, Simon Goldschmidt >> > >> <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Am 20.12.2018 um 15:49 schrieb Simon Glass: >> > >>>> Hi Simon, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 14:06, Simon Goldschmidt >> > >>>> <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Hi, >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> while searching for bytes to save in SPL in order to add FIT >> > >>>>> signature >> > >>>>> handling, I am currently trying to get socfpga-gen5 to use >> > >>>>> OF_PLATDATA. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> To begin, I stripped down socfpga_socrates_defconfig to absolutely >> > >>>>> nothing but serial drivers in SPL (with some modifications to the >> > >>>>> Kconfig) and enabled DEBUG_UART to see what's going on. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Now while this config runs OK with a dtb (it just won't boot as >> > >>>>> drivers >> > >>>>> are missing -> "failed to boot from all boot devices"), it does not >> > >>>>> find >> > >>>>> the serial driver after enabling OF_PLATDATA. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> So since serial_rockchip.c already uses OF_PLATDATA and is based on >> > >>>>> ns16550 that my socfpga-gen5 platform is using: what do I have to do >> > >>>>> besides enabling OF_PLATDATA to get this working? >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> I just seems like uclass_first_device does not find any UCLASS_SERIAL >> > >>>>> deivce when OF_PLATDATA is enabled. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> There is the of-plat.txt README. >> > >>> >> > >>> Yes, I should have mentioned I already read that and still had those >> > >>> questions. Kconfig help says README.platdata though. We probably should >> > >>> update that link. >> > >>> >> > >>>> Basically the dtoc tool creates U_BOOT_DEVICE() declarations and links >> > >>>> them with SPL. These should show up in your image and therefore be >> > >>>> bound. You can call dm_dump_all() in SPL to see what what devices are >> > >>>> bound. I presume you are calling spl_init()? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> You can look at what dtoc produces. The example serial driver for >> > >>>> Rockchip is serial_rockchip.c >> > >>> >> > >>> I saw that as an example (because I also have an ns16550 compatible on >> > >>> my board) but couldn't figure out why it is not bound. By debugging >> > >>> 'dm_scan_platdata', 'lists_bind_drivers' and 'device_bind_by_name', by >> > >>> now I know the driver names don't match. That is something I did not >> > >>> get >> > >>> just by reading of-plat.txt. I'll work on a patch to clarify that >> > >>> document. >> > >> >> > >> Yes I'd really appreciate some patches here. It is hard to know what >> > >> people won't understand and this feature could really do with a more >> > >> details docs or a walk-through. >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> Right now, serial works. I had to add a new platform specific driver >> > >>> just like serial_rockchip though. For DTS, we can pass multiple >> > >>> 'compatible' strings, but for platdata, we have to create multiple >> > >>> drivers. That's a bit strange when porting boards... >> > >> >> > >> Yes it is. I'm not sure how to solve that though. Probably dtoc can be >> > >> made smarter. Ideally you only need one device of each uclass in SPL. >> > > >> > > Would it work to use the unchanged 'compatible' string for the '.name' >> > > of U_BOOT_DEVICE generated by dtoc? Then the binding of such drivers >> > > could change from comparing names to comparing to compatibles. That >> > > would make it more DTS-like. >> > > >> > > Then, I think we could need some kind of fallback code for properties >> > > that are optional in the DTS. Maybe we can create defines for each dtd >> > > struct so that drivers can test the existence of dtd sturct fields using >> > > #ifdef. [Given the special usage, I guess it's OK to assume that theses >> > > structs are only used once per DTS so that we don't have to worry about >> > > how to solve this for multiple occurrences with different optional >> > > parameters?] >> > > >> > > Oh, and then I think dtb_platdata.py should create the dtd instances as >> > > const. I'll prepare a patch for that. >> > > >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> (And when answering this, keep in mind I need to get MMC and QSPI >> > >>>>> drivers working with OF_PLATDATA - I already fixed compiler errors in >> > >>>>> those, nothing more.) >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Yes MMC should be OK, but QSPI might be blazing a bit of a trail. >> > >> > Hmm, QSPI works as well when hacking the things that the driver wants to >> > parse from subnode properties. However, I haven't found a way to access >> > the platform data of the spi-flash from the driver. >> > >> > Maybe we need to somehow make subnodes available in the dt-platdata >> > structs to make that work? >> >> There is support for phandles but not for parent relationships. I >> suppose it would not be impossible to add that in dtoc with a 'parent' >> pointer. > > > SPI flash actually needs it the other way round. At least the cadence qspi > driver I'm using checks for a subnode that describes the flash chip. > > I'll see if I can add that to dtoc.
By now I have SPI successfully running with platdata by adding child arrays to the platdata struct via dtoc. However, probing the flash chip is not found in 'spi_get_bus_and_cs' and so the transfer falls back to 100 kHz, which is of course bad. That code expects a udevice child under the spi udevice. Looks like that needs more changes than just in dtoc? Did you have SPI running with platdata on any board, yet? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
