All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: david.jander@protonic.nl (David Jander)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:06:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110310170627.2d8135a7@archvile> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110310133715.GC29521@pengutronix.de>

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:37:15 +0100
"s.hauer at pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:40:23PM +0100, David Jander wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Sascha,
> > 
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:07:00 +0100
> > "s.hauer at pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > > The current imx for-next tree is not booting on my Babbage board. Is
> > > > it okay for you with your HW. I'll have to debug the booting part
> > > > first.
> > > 
> > > Probably because other than kconfig states i.MX51 and i.MX53 cannot be
> > > compiled in one kernel. the for-next branch boots fine on my babbage.
> > 
> > Would you mind explaining (or pointing to an explanation) as to why this is
> > not supposed to work? Given the high level of compatibility between MX51
> > and MX53, I'd say there must be a very good reason not to enable a single
> > binary kernel for both. Or is this just temporary brokenness?
> 
> i.MX51 and i.MX53 have different phys_offsets. Look at
> arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot:
> 
>    zreladdr-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) := 0x70008000
> params_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) := 0x70000100
> initrd_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) := 0x70800000
>    zreladdr-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51) := 0x90008000
> params_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51) := 0x90000100
> initrd_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51) := 0x90800000
>    zreladdr-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53) := 0x70008000
> params_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53) := 0x70000100
> initrd_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53) := 0x70800000
> 
> Compiling a kernel for i.MX50 and i.MX53 will work, but compiling a
> kernel for i.MX51 and i.MX53 will and up with a kernel assuming SDRAM
> at 0x70000000 which will fail on a i.MX51. We need
> phys_to_virt/virt_to_phys runtime patching to get this right. This
> will be merged in the next merge window.

Ok, so it classifies as "temporary brokenness" ;-)
Thanks a lot for clarifying.

Best regards,

-- 
David Jander
Protonic Holland.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Jander <david.jander@protonic.nl>
To: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Nguyen Dinh-R00091 <R00091@freescale.com>,
	"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Zhang Lily-R58066 <R58066@freescale.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vaidyanathan Ranjani-RA5478 <RA5478@freescale.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	Arnaud Patard <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:06:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110310170627.2d8135a7@archvile> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110310133715.GC29521@pengutronix.de>

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:37:15 +0100
"s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:40:23PM +0100, David Jander wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Sascha,
> > 
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:07:00 +0100
> > "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > > The current imx for-next tree is not booting on my Babbage board. Is
> > > > it okay for you with your HW. I'll have to debug the booting part
> > > > first.
> > > 
> > > Probably because other than kconfig states i.MX51 and i.MX53 cannot be
> > > compiled in one kernel. the for-next branch boots fine on my babbage.
> > 
> > Would you mind explaining (or pointing to an explanation) as to why this is
> > not supposed to work? Given the high level of compatibility between MX51
> > and MX53, I'd say there must be a very good reason not to enable a single
> > binary kernel for both. Or is this just temporary brokenness?
> 
> i.MX51 and i.MX53 have different phys_offsets. Look at
> arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot:
> 
>    zreladdr-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) := 0x70008000
> params_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) := 0x70000100
> initrd_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) := 0x70800000
>    zreladdr-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51) := 0x90008000
> params_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51) := 0x90000100
> initrd_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51) := 0x90800000
>    zreladdr-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53) := 0x70008000
> params_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53) := 0x70000100
> initrd_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53) := 0x70800000
> 
> Compiling a kernel for i.MX50 and i.MX53 will work, but compiling a
> kernel for i.MX51 and i.MX53 will and up with a kernel assuming SDRAM
> at 0x70000000 which will fail on a i.MX51. We need
> phys_to_virt/virt_to_phys runtime patching to get this right. This
> will be merged in the next merge window.

Ok, so it classifies as "temporary brokenness" ;-)
Thanks a lot for clarifying.

Best regards,

-- 
David Jander
Protonic Holland.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-10 16:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-04 23:29 [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com
2011-03-04 23:29 ` Dinh.Nguyen
2011-03-04 23:29 ` [PATCHv2 2/2] ARM: mx51: Add support for low power suspend on MX51 Dinh.Nguyen at freescale.com
2011-03-04 23:29   ` Dinh.Nguyen
2011-03-11  9:16   ` Arnaud Patard (Rtp)
2011-03-11  9:16     ` Arnaud Patard
2011-03-04 23:33 ` [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-04 23:33   ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-05 20:46   ` Arnaud Patard (Rtp)
2011-03-05 20:46     ` Arnaud Patard
2011-03-07 15:37     ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-07 15:37       ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-07 16:02       ` Arnaud Patard (Rtp)
2011-03-07 16:02         ` Arnaud Patard
2011-03-07 16:35         ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-07 16:35           ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-07 18:07           ` s.hauer at pengutronix.de
2011-03-07 18:07             ` s.hauer
2011-03-07 20:01             ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-07 20:01               ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-08 11:40             ` David Jander
2011-03-08 11:40               ` David Jander
2011-03-10 13:37               ` s.hauer at pengutronix.de
2011-03-10 13:37                 ` s.hauer
2011-03-10 16:06                 ` David Jander [this message]
2011-03-10 16:06                   ` David Jander
2011-03-07 20:29         ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-07 20:29           ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-10 15:12 ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091
2011-03-10 15:12   ` Nguyen Dinh-R00091

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110310170627.2d8135a7@archvile \
    --to=david.jander@protonic.nl \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.